Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
24 7 Customer Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore East on 22 September, 2025
Service Tax Appeal No. ST/23422/2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 3
Virtual Hearing
Service Tax Appeal No. 23422 of 2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 520/2014 dated 15.07.2014 passed by the
Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals - II), Bangalore.)
M/s. 24/7 Customer Pvt. Ltd.,
Prestige Tech Park, Platina - 2, Outer Ring Road,
Kadubeesanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore - 560 087. ..........Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner of Service Tax - II,
3rd Floor, BMTC Complex, Domlur,
Bangalore - 560 071. ...........Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. Ram Akshya Raut, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Rajashekar. B. N. N, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 21536 /2025 Date of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 Per : Pullela Nageswara Rao This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 520/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. The period involved is from January 2009 to March 2009.
2. The brief facts of the facts are M/s. 24/7 Customers Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in export of Call Centre Services (Business Auxiliary Service) and obtained Central Registration for the premises from where the output services are provided and utilizes various input services for use Page 1 of 4 Service Tax Appeal No. ST/23422/2014 in providing the output services. Appellant filed an application for refund of accumulated cenvat credit for the period 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009 for an amount of Rs. 38,03,161/- on 03.12.2009 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005 read with Notification No. 05/2006 dated 14.03.2006. The refund claim was adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority and was rejected. On appeal Commissioner (Appeals), vide Orders-in-Appeal No. 519-520/2014 dated 15.07.2014 allowed certain input services as eligible inputs for the output services provided by the appellant and rejected some of the input services as ineligible services. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No. 519/2014 dated 15.07.2014 of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant had filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 20802/2021 dated 26.10.2021 allowed the appeal of the appellant and held that the input services namely 'advertising agency' services and 'event management' services are eligible inputs for the appellant and hence the refund of the inputs service pertaining to these 2 (two) services was allowed. The present Service Tax Appeal No. ST/23422/2014 is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 520/2014 where the refund has been disallowed for the above 2 (two) mentioned services. In this appeal the issue involved the same as in Appeal No. ST/23421/2014.
3. During the Virtual Hearing (VH), the Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this Tribunal in Appeal No. ST/23421/2014 vide Final Order No. 20802/2021 dated 26.10.2021 has allowed the refund of the input services which are the same in the impugned order and hence the issue is no more res integra and the appeal may be allowed.
4. Further, the Learned Counsel with regard to the 'advertising agency' services cited the following case laws:-
(i) Agriculture Products Market Committee Vs. C. C. E., Vadodara - II - 2013 (30) S. T. R. 558 (Tri. - Ahmd.)
(ii) Heartland Bangalore Transcription Ser. (P) Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Bangalore - 2011 (21) S. T. R. 430 (Tri. -
Bang.)
5. As regards the 'Event Management' services the appellant relied on the following case laws:-
Page 2 of 4Service Tax Appeal No. ST/23422/2014
(i) Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai - 2017 (3) G.S.T.L 427 (Tri. - Mumbai)
(ii) Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut -
I- 2011 (22) S.T.R. 450 (Tri. - Del.)
(iii) Oceans Connect India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune - III - 2016 (46) S.T.R. 858 (Tri. - Mumbai)
(iv) Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.I., Noida - 2015 (38) S.T.R 998 (Tri. - Del.)
6. Further the Learned Counsel submits that while adjudicating the refund application under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the establishment of nexus should not be insisted upon and in this regard, he cited the following case laws:-
(i) Verisign Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of S.T., Bangalore - I -2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 161 (Tri. - Bang.)
(ii) Final Order dated 26/08/2019 in Appeal No. ST/88835/2018 in the case of M/s. Fractal Analytics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East - CESTAT, Mumbai
(iii) Final Order No. 20001/2020 dated 02/01/2020 in the case of M/s. Gemini Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Trivandrum CESTAT, Bangalore
(iv) Final Order No. A/30588/2020 dated 24/02/2020 in the case of Virtusa (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Hyderabad - II -
CESTAT, Hyderabad.
7. Further the Learned Counsel submits that the Learned Appellate Authority has not considered the clarification issued by CBEC vide Circular No. 112/06/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 wherein it is clarified that the self-certified statement of correlation of export invoices with FIRC would suffice. The relevant extract of the Circular is as follows:-
"In case where FIRCs are issued by bank without linkage of export invoices and realization, and are issued on consolidated basis, the exporters should submit self-certified statement along with FIRCS showing the details of export in respect of which the FIRC Page 3 of 4 Service Tax Appeal No. ST/23422/2014 pertains. Refund should be allowed on such certified statements. The appellant respectfully submit that the requirement is only to file self-certified statement of correlation of export invoices with FIRC and the direction to file the correlation statement duly certified by the bankers goes beyond the circular of the CBEC".
8. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
9. Heard both sides and perused the records.
10. I find in this case, the issue is with regard to refund of cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 05/2006 dated 14.03.2006, wherein the refund of 2 (two) input services i.e., 'advertising agency' services and 'event management' Services have been disallowed on the ground of there being no nexus with the output services. I find that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in catena of cases as cited, supra and therefore I find it is no more res integra. Further this Tribunal in the Appellant's own case in Appeal No. ST/23421/2014 vide Final Order No. 20802/2021 dated 26.10.2021 has allowed refund of cenvat credit on these 2 (two) input services. I also find that the impugned order is a common order against which appellant had filed the earlier Appeal No. ST/23421/2014, which was allowed, and this appeal is with regard to other order for a different period on the same issue.
11. In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
12. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
(Order was pronounced in open court on 22.09.2025.) (Pullela Nageswara Rao) Member (Technical) hr/Sasi Page 4 of 4