Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Robert Bosch Engineering And Business ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 8 December, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: ST/26925/2013-DB, ST/20032/2015-DB, ST/20033/2015-DB, ST/20035/2015-DB, ST/20036/2015-DB, ST/21405/2017-DB, ST/21480/2015-DB, ST/27164/2013-DB, ST/27165/2013-DB, ST/2036/2012-DB, ST/2037/2012-DB, ST/3067/2012-DB, ST/3068/2012-DB, ST/3069/2012-DB, ST/3070/2012-DB, ST/3071/2012-DB, E/1763/2011-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 81/2013 dated 19/03/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , LTU BANGALORE ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 57-58/2014 dated 30/09/2014 passed by Commissioner Of LTU , BANGALORE LTU ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 55-56/2014 dated 30/09/2014 passed by Commissioner Of LTU , BANGALORE LTU ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 139/2017-LTU dated 16/06/2017 passed by Principal Commissioner LTU , BANGALORE LTU ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 43-44/2015 dated 31/03/2015 passed by Commissioner Of LTU , BANGALORE LTU ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 99/2013 dated 12/04/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , LTU BANGALORE ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 98/2013 dated 12/04/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , LTU BANGALORE ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. JMJ-45/2012 dated 23/04/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , LTU BANGALORE ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 71 to 76/2012 dated 04/06/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , LTU BANGALORE ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 32 & 33/2012 dated 13/03/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , LTU BANGALORE ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 07/2011 dated 18/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , LTU BANGALORE ] Robert Bosch Engineering And Business Solutions Limited No. 123, Industrial Layout, Hosur Road, Koramangala, BANGALORE - 560095 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-LTU 100 FT RING ROAD JSS TOWERS, BANASHANKARI-III STAGE, BANGALORE, - 560085 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain, CA DJHS & ASSOCIATES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT 'GREEN APPLE', NO.16, 1ST FLOOR, MURPHY ROAD, ULSOOR BANGALORE - 560008 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Dr. Ezhilmathi, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 08/12/2017 Date of Decision: 08/12/2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 23114-23130 / 2017 Per : V. PADMANABHAN All these appeals have been filed against various orders of the Commissioner (A) covering the period from April 2008 to June 2012. The appellant is engaged in developing and export of software. They availed CENVAT credit on various input services. Since almost the entire turnover of the appellants unit is made up of export of software services, they claimed refund of the accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR) from time to time. In the various impugned orders, several input services have been held to be not eligible for availing CENVAT credit for the reasons that these services have no nexus with the output service of the appellant i.e., the Information Technology Software Service. In addition, various amounts also came to be disallowed for a variety of other reasons. Aggrieved by these impugned orders, the present appeals have been filed.
2. Since all these appeals deal with the common issue of entitlement of the payment for input service credit and refund of the same, all the appeals are being disposed of through this common order.
3. With the above background, we heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain, learned Consultant for the appellant as well as Dr. Ezhilmathi, learned AR for the Revenue.
4. The learned consultant submits that as many as 24 types of input services have been held to be inadmissible for purposes of availing CENVAT credit during the period under question. The period under dispute cover both the period from April 2008 to March 2011 and further, for the period from April 2011 to June 2012 after the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules was amended. However, he submits that in respect of all these services, the department has subsequently been allowing the refund of such CENVAT credit on the basis of subsequent decisions of the Tribunal and other higher appellate fora. He also submits a chart giving the details of such decisions which have covered the issue in favour of the appellant. Sl. No. Category of Service Grand Total (in Rupees) Case Law Reference 1 Renting of Immovable Property Service 25,668,005
1) HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad IV [2014TIOL-214-CESTAT-BANG]
2) Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited [Honble CESTAT Bangalore Final Order No.21794-21798/2014 dated 26-Sept-2014]
3) CCE Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd [2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST]
4) Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vs Ingersoll Rand International India Ltd [2015-TIOL-1247-CESTAT-BANG]
5) Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs. MMS Maritime (India) Pvt Ltd. [2016 (41) STR 869 (Tri-Mum)]
6) Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. Vs. CCE Delhi-IV [2016 (41) STR 824 (Tri-Del)
7) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs CCEx, NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. - Del.)]
8) CST Bangalore Vs. Mercedes Benz Research & Development India (P) Ltd - [2013 (30) STR 257 (Tri-Bang)]
9) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 2 Insurance Auxiliary Service / General Insurance Service 7,520,992
1) Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd [2011-TIOL-866-HC-KAR-ST]
2) FIEM Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai III [TS-149-CESTAT-2016(CHNY)-ST][Final Order No. 40554 / 2016 dated 29-Mar-2016]
3) Willis Processing Services (India) Private Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai-II, [TS-5-CESTAT-2016(Mum)-ST][Order No.A/85189 to 85205/16/SMB dated 06-Jan-2016]
4) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 3 Commercial Training and Coaching Service 7,142,521
1) Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST Hyderabad-IV [TS-240-CESTAT-2016-ST]
2) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 4 Clearing and Forwarding Agents Service 6,602,019
1) In our own case- Final Order No. 21397/2016 dated 13-Dec-2016
2) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM]
3) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 5 Outdoor Caterers Service 6,086,695
1) Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd [2011-TIOL-866-HC-KAR-ST]
2) CCE Vs. Deloitte Tax services (P) Ltd [2008-TIOL-629-CESTAT-BANG]
3) CCE Vs. GKN Sinter Metals Ltd, Aurangabad-2009 (6) TMI 46-CESTAT Mumbai
4)JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-III [2016 (41) S.T.R. 990 (Tri. - Mumbai)]
5) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 6 Business Support Service 4,978,278
1) In our own case- Final Order No. 21397/2016 dated 13-Dec-2016
2) Megma Design Automation (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2015 (40) S.T.R. 800 (Tri. - Bang.)]
3) HCL Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Noida[2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)]
4) Castrol India Limited Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (291) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.)]
5) Kijiji (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. Mumbai-I [2013 (32) S.T.R. 661 (Tri. - Mumbai)]
6) CCE Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd [2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST]
7) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 7 Maintenance or Repair Service 3,739,307
1) In our own case- Final Order No. 21397/2016 dated 13-Dec-2016
2) ISMT Ltd Vs CCE&C [2010-TIOL-27-CESTAT-MUM]
3) Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd Vs CCE [2010-TIOL-983-CESTAT-MUM]
4) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)]
5) JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-III [2016 (41) S.T.R. 990 (Tri. - Mumbai)]
6) COMMISSIONER OF S.T., MUMBAI-II Vs. MMS MARITIME (INDIA) PVT. LTD.[2016 (41) S.T.R. 869 (Tri. - Mumbai)]
7) Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST Hyderabad-IV [TS-240-CESTAT-2016-ST]
8) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM]
9) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 8 Security Agency Service 3,615,676
1) ISMT Limited Vs. CCE, Aurangabad [TS-335-CESTAT-2015-ST]
2) CST, Bangalore Vs. Yodlee Infotech (P) Ltd [2015 (39) S.T.R. 695 (Tri. - Bang.)]
3) CCEx Hyd-IV Vs. Deloitte Tax Services India P Ltd [2008 (11) STR 266 (Tri-Bang)]
4) CCEx Meerut Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Ltd [2011 (271) ELT 314 (Tri-Del)]
5) Utopia India Pvt Ltd Vs. CST, Bangalore [2011 (23) STR 25 (Tri-Bang)]
6) Castrol India Limited Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (291) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.)]
7) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)]
8) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 9 Management Consultants Service 2,962,633
1) In our own case- Final Order No. 21397/2016 dated 13-Dec-2016
2) Heartland Bangalore Transcription Services (P) Ltd. v. CST [2011 (21) STR 430 (Tri-Bang)]
3) Semco Electricals Pvt Ltd (Unit I & II) Vs. CCE Pune-1 [2011-TIOL-965-CESTAT Mum]
4) Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE Bangalore [2011 (21) STR 460 (Tri-Bang)]
5) Castrol India Limited Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (291) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.)]
6) Kijiji (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. Mumbai-I [2013 (32) S.T.R. 661 (Tri. - Mumbai)]
7) COMMISSIONER OF S.T., MUMBAI-II Vs. MMS MARITIME (INDIA) PVT. LTD.[2016 (41) S.T.R. 869 (Tri. - Mumbai)]
8) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM]
9) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 10 Chartered Accountants Service 2,513,801
1) COMMISSIONER OF S.T., MUMBAI-II Vs. MMS MARITIME (INDIA) PVT. LTD.[2016 (41) S.T.R. 869 (Tri. - Mumbai)]
3) Utopia India Pvt Ltd Vs. CST Bangalore [2011-TIOL-1080-CESTAT-BANG]
4) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM]
5) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 11 Cleaning Services 1,643,572
1) Balkrishna Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2010 (254) E.L.T. 301 (Tri.) = 2010 (18) S.T.R. 600 (T)
2) Rotork Control (India) P. Ltd. v. CCE - 2010 (20) S.T.R. 684 (Tri.)
2) CCE, Salem v. ITC Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-780-CESTAT-MAD = 2011 (268) E.L.T. 89 (Tri.-Chennai) = 2012 (26) S.T.R. 92 (Tri.-Chennai)
4) NTF (India) Ltd. v. CCE - 2013 (30) S.T.R. 575 (Tri.-Del.)
5) Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE - 2013 (30) S.T.R. 310 (Tri. - Mum.)
6) CST Bangalore Vs. Yokogawa IA Technologies India P Ltd [2011 (24) STR 465 (Tri-Bang)]
7) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)]
8) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs CCEx, NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. - Del.)]
9) Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST Hyderabad-IV [TS-240-CESTAT-2016-ST]
10) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM]
11) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 12 Rent-a-cab Operator 963,272
1) Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd [2011-TIOL-866-HC-KAR-ST]
2) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)]
3) JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-III [2016 (41) S.T.R. 990 (Tri. - Mumbai)] 13 Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agencys Service 762,994
1) CCEx Hyd-IV Vs. Deloitte Tax Services India P Ltd [2008 (11) STR 266 (Tri-Bang)]
2) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)]
3) COMMISSIONER OF S.T., MUMBAI-II Vs. MMS MARITIME (INDIA) PVT. LTD.[2016 (41) S.T.R. 869 (Tri. - Mumbai)]
4) Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST Hyderabad-IV [TS-240-CESTAT-2016-ST]
5) Mainstay Teleservices Ltd Vs. CST Bangalore [2015 (39) STR 693 (T-Bang)]
6) CCE, Bangalore Vs. Jubliant Biosys Ltd [2016 (42) STR 729 (T-Bang)]
7) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM]
8) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 14 Advertisement Services 327,999
1) Castrol India Limited Vs. CCE, VAPI [2013 (291) ELT 469 (Tri-Ahm)]
2) COMMISSIONER OF S.T., MUMBAI-II Vs. MMS MARITIME (INDIA) PVT. LTD.[2016 (41) S.T.R. 869 (Tri. - Mumbai)]
3) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 15 Event Management Service 300,646
1) In our own case- Final Order No. 21397/2016 dated 13-Dec-2016
2) Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE., Aurangabad [2013 (32) S.T.R. 95 (Tri.-Mum.)]
3) COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II Vs.WNS GLOBAL SERVICES [2016 (44) S.T.R. 454 (Tri. - Mum)]
4) COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [2015 (37) S.T.R. 768 (Tri. - Mum)]
5) BANK OF BARODA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-II [2015 (37) S.T.R. 488 (Tri. - Mum)]
6) DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEM P. LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF CUS., C.E. & S.T., NOIDA [ 2014 (36) S.T.R. 1089 (Tri. - Del.)]
7) Castrol India Limited Vs. CCE, VAPI [2013 (291) ELT 469 (Tri-Ahm)]
8) J.P. Morgan Service (I) Pvt Ltd. Vs. CST Mumbai [2016 (42) S.T.R. 196 (Tri.-Mum)]
9) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs CCEx, NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. - Del.)]
10) Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Ltd. v. CCE., LTU. Bangalore [2011 (24) S.T.R. 645 (Tri-Bang)]
11) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 16 Legal Consultancy Service 208,068
1) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)]
2) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 17 Business Auxiliary Service 153,179
1) SEMCO ELECTRIC PVT LTD Vs. CCE, Pune-I [2011-TIOL-965-CESTAT-MUM]
2) J.P. Morgan Service (I) Pvt Ltd. Vs. CST Mumbai [2016 (42) S.T.R. 196 (Tri.-Mum)]
4) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM]
5) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 18 Air Travel Agent's Service 120,304
1) In our own case- Final Order No. 21397/2016 dated 13-Dec-2016
2) Megma Design Automation (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2015 (40) S.T.R. 800 (Tri. - Bang.)]
3) CCE Vs. Fine Care Biosystems [2009 (16) STR 701 (Tri-Ahm)]
4) CCE Chennai Vs. Greaves Cotton Ltd [2010 (20) STR 703 (Tri-Chn)]
5) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER Vs ESSAR OIL LTD. [2016 (41) S.T.R. 389 (Guj.)]
6) JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-III [2016 (41) S.T.R. 990 (Tri. - Mumbai)]
8) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM]
9) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 19 Courier service 118,698
1) HCL Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Noida[2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)]
3) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 20 Consulting Engineering Service 71,249
1) Castrol India Limited Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (291) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.)]
2) Dell International Services Vs. CCE Bangalore [2010 (17) STR 540 (T-Bang)]
3) Delphi Automotive Service Vs. CST, Bangalore [2015 (37) STR 522 (T-Bang)] 21 Erection, Commissioning and Installation 54,504
1) Dell International Services Vs. CCE Bangalore [2010 (17) STR 540 (T-Bang)]
2) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM]
3) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 22 Lodging or Residential Service in Hotel 45,854
1) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs CCEx, NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. - Del.)] 23 Information Technology Software Service 27,818
2) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM]
3) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 24 Telecommunication Service 6,735
1) CCE v. Axiom Impex International Ltd.
2) Grasim Industries Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2008 (11) STR 168 (Tri-Del)]
3) CCE Bhavnagar Vs. Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd [2008 (12) STR 67 (Tri-Ahm)] C4) CE Raipur Vs. HEG Ltd [2010 (18) STR 446 (Tri-Del)]
5) Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST Hyderabad-IV [TS-240-CESTAT-2016-ST]
6) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM]
7) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)]
5. The learned AR for the department reiterated the findings of the authorities below, however, she fairly agrees that the subsequent decisions of the Tribunal cover the services under dispute.
6. After hearing both sides as well as on perusal of the records and the various decisions cited by the appellant, we are of the view that all these 24 services have been held to be eligible input services as per the decisions cited by the appellant. Consequently, we allow the CENVAT Credits on these services during the disputed period by setting aside the impugned orders.
7. Next we consider the CENVAT credits disallowed on various miscellaneous grounds.
Credits disallowed on:
7 (i) Procedural errors in documentation CENVAT credit stand disallowed for the reason that the appellant has not submitted copies of the relevant documents such as invoices at the time of claiming refunds but the learned consultant asserts that the appellant is in a possession of such documents and in a position to submit the same to make good the deficiency in the documentation. Consequently, we set aside the findings in the impugned orders on this ground and remand the matter to the original adjudicating for a de novo decision on this subject after considering the documents submitted by the appellant. For this purpose, an opportunity of effective hearing may be granted to the appellant to put forth such documentation.
7 (ii) Export Turnover Ratio and Apparent error and double disallowance The learned consultant submitted that for sanctioning of refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, the maximum refund amount is restricted to the export turnover ratio i.e., to mean Maximum refund = Value of Exports x CENVAT credit taken Total value of turnover It is the submission of the learned consultant that the authorities below have taken into account the net CENVAT credit availed for arriving at the maximum refund i.e., to mean the gross CENVAT credit taken minus the CENVAT credit utilized. It is his further submission that the Rules require the gross CENVAT credit to be considered for working out the maximum refund. In this regard, he submits that the Tribunal in the case of J. P. Morgan Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai: 2016 (42) STR 196 (Tri.-Mum.) has upheld such a view. In respect of subsequent refund claims, the department themselves have started considering the gross CENVAT credit taken for determining the maximum refund eligible.
Learned DR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the authorities below to the effect that it is only the net CENVAT credit which is required to be taken as per CENVAT Credit Rules. However, she further submits that the definition of exports turnover services and total turnover was amended with effect from 1.4.2012 by Notification No.18/2012-CX (NT) dated 17.3.2012 and it was specified that the same is to be determined on the basis of realization of export proceeds and not on the basis of export invoice value. This fact also needs to be verified.
After considering the submissions of both parties on the subject, we are of the view that the dispute is with reference to whether the maximum refund allowable is to be calculated on the basis of gross or net CENVAT credit which has been taken by the appellant. The related point is also with reference to the definition of exports turnover services from 4/2012 which may also have a bearing on the total refund allowable to the appellant. In view of the above, we set aside the findings of the lower authorities on the subject matter of export turnover ratio and remand the issue back to the original authority for redetermination of the same keeping in view the decisions on the subject including the decisions cited above and also re-determine such refund amounts keeping in view the amended definition of exports turnover services from 1.4.2012.
7 (iii) Credit availed in particular quarter and payment made in next quarter Learned consultant submits that in the quarter October December 2008, the refund of CENVAT credit was denied for the reason that the appellant did not make the payments for these input services within the quarter under consideration. It is his submission that the payments for these services were made in the subsequent quarter and hence, such refunds would be allowable in the subsequent quarter but the same has not been considered.
We note that even though the payment was not made by the appellant for the services within the quarter for which the refund was claimed, the same has been made in the subsequent quarter. If that is so, then it becomes only a procedural lapse for which the substantial benefit of refund cannot be denied to the appellant. Hence, the original authority is directed to verify the fact of payment for such services in subsequent quarter and then allow the refund.
8. In view of the above discussions, the appeals are disposed of in above terms. (Order dictated in Open Court on 08/12/2017) V. PADMANABHAN TECHNICAL MEMBER S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv...
17