Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Genpact India Private Limited vs Delhi-Iv on 13 February, 2026
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I
Service Tax Appeal No. 51892 of 2015
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 28/ST/APPEAL-II/SM/GGN/2014-15 dated
17.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Service Tax, Gurgaon]
M/s Genpact India Private Limited ......Appellant
GE Towers, Sector 53, DLF City,
Phase V, Gurugram, Haryana 122002
VERSUS
Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-IV ......Respondent
Plot No. 36-37, Sector 32, Gurugram, Haryana 122001 APPEARANCE:
Shri Prasad Paranjape and Shri Aditya Joglekar, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Aniram Meena and Shri Shantanu Kumar Meena, Authorized Representatives for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 60149/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 16.10.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 13.02.2026 S. S. GARG :
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original dated 12.05.2014 by upholding the rejection of refund; the details of refund rejected are given herein below in tabular form:
2 ST/51892/2015 Sr. Grounds Amount (Rs.) No.
1. Alleged absence of Nexus 99,18,299/-
2. Input Service invoices not bearing Service Tax 1,57,753/-
Registration Number
3. Input Service invoices not bearing PAN based 3,42,308/-
Service Tax Registration Number
4. Input Service invoices not issued on the registered 2,30,241/-
premises Total 1,06,48,601/-
2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant are primarily involved in the provision of various back-end services in the nature of call centre services, back office management, IT help- desk services, collectively called as "BPO Services". The Appellant have entered into a Master Services Sub-Contracting Agreement with Genpact International, Hungary Branch located outside India. Majority of the services provided by the Appellant are exported outside India on behalf of its parent entity located outside India and some portion of services are provided directly to the customers located in India. The Appellant have classified their services under taxable category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' under Section 65(1) read with Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute with respect to the classification adopted by the Appellant as also with respect to the services provided by the Appellant to their overseas entity qualifying as export under Export of Services Rules, 2005. Since majority of the services rendered by the Appellant qualify as export, the CENVAT credit availed by the Appellant on various input services remained unutilized and in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, the 3 ST/51892/2015 Appellant filed refund claim of such unutilized credit. No objection was raised by the department with respect to eligibility of such CENVAT credit when availed and which remained unutilized due to export nature of majority of output services provided by the Appellant. The Appellant filed refund claim which was partly allowed and partly rejected by the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 12.05.2014. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, to the extent refund was denied, the Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, has upheld the rejection of the refund. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Heard both the sides and perused the material on records.
4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law, and binding judicial precedents including the decision of this Tribunal in Appellant's own case [vide Final Order No. 60766- 60769/2025 dated 09.07.2025].
4.1 The learned Counsel further submits that all the input services, for which refund has been rejected, are used by the Appellant for provision of output services and these services are covered within the definition of 'input services' as defined in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He further submits that the Appellant fulfil all the conditions of availing CENVAT credit and accordingly, are eligible for the same. He also submits that the Appellant have not been questioned on the correctness or entitlement of CENVAT credit when availed by them 4 ST/51892/2015 and declared in the respective returns and further, no proceedings were initiated against the Appellant under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for recovery of CENVAT credit which remained unutilized and was sought to be refunded due to export nature of output services provided by the Appellant.
4.2 The learned Counsel further relies on the Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010, which inter alia clarifies that there cannot be two different yard sticks, i.e. one for determining the eligibility of CENVAT credit and the other for determining the eligibility of refund; in other words, once credit when availed was not objected by the department, the same cannot be challenged during the refund processing stage.
4.3 The learned Counsel further submits that it is not in dispute that the services provided by the Appellant qualify as 'export' and the Appellant have fulfilled all other conditions of eligibility for refund such as limitation, receipt of foreign exchange. 4.4 The learned Counsel further submits that this Tribunal in Appellant's own case [vide Final Order No. 60766-60769/2025 dated 09.07.2025] has held that credit if not objected at the stage of availment, the same cannot be challenged during the refund proceeding stage and the refund should be granted without raising a fresh challenge to the admissibility of credit. He also relies on the following decisions:
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. CCE & ST, Chandigarh-I - (2024) 24 Centax 131 (Tri. Chan.)
5 ST/51892/2015 Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV - 2020 (43) GSTL 402 (Tri. Hyd.), affirmed by Telangana High Court - Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV vs. Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. - 2021- TIOL-2305-HC Telangana-ST BNP Paribas India Solutions Ltd. vs. Commr. of CGST, Mumbai East - 2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 539 (Tri. Mumbai) ADP Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad-II - 2024 (9) TMI 925 (Tri. Hyd.) 4.5 As regard the issue on merits, the learned Counsel submits that all the services, on which CENVAT credit has been denied, have been held to be 'input services' in various decisions passed by the Tribunal as well as by the High Courts. He places reliance on the following decisions:
Adani Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd vs. CST - 2016 (42) STR 1010 (Tri. Ahmd.) Adani Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd vs. CST - 2016 (42) STR 1010 (Tri. Ahmd.) Utopia India Pvt Ltd vs. CST, Bangalore - 2011 (23) STR 25 (Tri. Bang.) Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd vs. CST - 2024 (3) TMI 1407 CESTAT MUMBAI LB Tata Advanced Materials Ltd vs. CCE & ST - 2017 (7) TMI 57 CESTAT Bangalore 24/7 Customer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru East - 2021 (3) TMI 414 CESTAT Bangalore CCE vs. Convergys India Services Pvt Ltd - 2017 (48) STR 173 (Tri Chandigarh) Overseas Infrastructure Albance (I) Pvt Ltd vs. Commr of CGST - 2021 (44) GSTL 379 (Tri Mumbai) Warburg Pincus India Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai - 2018 (364) ELT 159 (Tri Mumbai) Olam Information Services Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central GST & Excise, Chennai -
2022 (2) TMI 201 CESTAT Chennai 6 ST/51892/2015 HCL Technologies Ltd vs. CCE, Noida - 2015 (40) STR 369 (Tri. Del.) 4.6 As regards the denial of CENVAT credit of Rs.7,30,302/- on the ground that input service invoices are incomplete as the same are not bearing Service Tax Registration No., PAN based Service Tax Registration Number of the service provider, or not being issued on the address of registered premises of the Appellant etc, the learned Counsel submits that receipt and use of input services for export of output services is not disputed and it is only procedural lapse, on the basis of which the substantive benefit should not be denied. In this regard, he places reliance on the following decisions:
Adani Enterprises Ltd vs. CCE & ST, Ahmedabad - 2020 (40) GSTL 468 (Tri. Ahmd.) Diya Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore - 2027 (47) STR 58 (Tri. Bang.) Kemwell Biopharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Bangalore - 2017 (47) STR 70 (Tri. Bang.) Commissioner of CE & ST, Noida vs. HCL Technologies Ltd - 2016 (46) STR 751 (Tri. Del.) Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs. CCE & ST, Kanpur - 2017 (3) GSTL 132 (Tri. All.) mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt Ltd vs. Commr.
of S.T., Bangalore - 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.) Bechtel India Pvt Ltd vs. CST, Delhi - (2023) 11 Centax 321 (Tri. Chan.)
5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the department reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5.1 He submits that the Appellant have filed five different claims for the period January 2011 to March 2012 on account of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 05/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 and Section 7 ST/51892/2015 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submits that the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 12.05.2014, sanctioned the refund of Rs.25,34,35,905/- and rejected the refund of Rs.1,12,17,594/- on account of inadmissible CENVAT credit. 5.2 He further submits that the Appellant itself have not contested the amount of credit of Rs.5,68,992/- which was denied on account of non-availability of input invoices with the Appellant and filed the present appeal in respect of remaining refund of Rs.1,06,48,601/- which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5.3 He further submits that there are some disputed input services which fall under the exclusion clause of the definition of input service under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2011 for which the Appellant are not entitled to the refund.
6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on records. We note that the main issue involved in the present appeals is whether the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is right in upholding rejection of refund of CENVAT credit due to absence of nexus and other grounds when the said CENVAT credit, when availed, was not objected.
7. As regards nexus, we find that each of the input service involved in the present case, was held to be 'input service' by various decisions of the Tribunal. In this regard, we may refer to the service- wise 'input services' and the decisions vide which it has been held to be 'input service', which are given herein below in tabular form:
8 ST/51892/2015 S. Description Amount Nexus with output Judicial No. of Services (in Rs.) service precedents/case-
laws
1. Credit Rating 4,36,475 Availed while Adani Port and Agency's recruiting employees Special Economic Services to do background Zone Ltd vs. CST -
verification who are 2016 (42) STR 1010
engaged in provision (Tri. Ahmd.)
of its output services
2. Event 48,97,924 For organizing career Warburg Pincus India
Management fairs, business Pvt Ltd vs. CGST -
Services promotion events, 2022 (11) TMI 695
internal team building CESTAT Mumbai
activities such events
3. General 6,70,326 Insurance of assets Utopia India Pvt Ltd
Insurance including laptops, vs. CST, Bangalore -
(Assets) servers and other IT 2011 (23) STR 25
equipment (Tri. Bang.)
4. General 3,10,015 Insurance for Tata Teleservices
Insurance employees and their (Maharashtra) Ltd
Services family members vs. CST - 2024 (3)
TMI 1407 CESTAT
MUMBAI LB
5. Tour 96,359 For employees Tata Advanced
Operators transportation to and Materials Ltd vs. CCE
Services fro to office and & ST - 2017 (7) TMI
business travel 57 CESTAT
Bangalore
6. Video 3,82,608 For recording official 24/7 Customer Pvt.
Production events, seminars and Ltd. Vs.
Services conferences held for Commissioner of
employees and Central Tax
training and marketing Bengaluru East -
activities 2021 (3) TMI 414
CESTAT Bangalore
7. Interior 2,14,016 For renovation and Olam Information
Decorator's modernization of office Services Private
Services building and premises Limited vs.
Commissioner of
Central GST &
Excise, Chennai -
2022 (2) TMI 201
CESTAT Chennai
8. Mandap 7,614 Availed for business CCE vs. Convergys
Keeper events such as India Services Pvt
Services conferences, seminars, Ltd - 2017 (48) STR
trainings etc and 173 (Tri Chandigarh)
career/job fairs
9. Club or 3,58,456 Membership of Overseas
Association business associations Infrastructure
Services engaged in evolving Albance (I) Pvt Ltd
innovative ideas and vs. Commr of CGST
9 ST/51892/2015
practices among the - 2021 (44) GSTL
organizations/ 379 (Tri Mumbai)
employees
Warburg Pincus India
Pvt Ltd vs.
Commissioner of
Service Tax, Mumbai
- 2018 (364) ELT
159 (Tri Mumbai)
10. Photography 16,170 Issuing photo id, Sarita Handa Exports
Service clicking and P Ltd vs. CCE - 2016
developing the (44) STR 654 (Tri.
photographs of such Chan.)
employees for journals
and internal reports Fidelity Business
services India Pvt Ltd
vs. CCT, Bengaluru
East - 2021 (50)
GSTL 315 (Tri.
Bang.)
11. Sponsorship 20,33,318 Availed for brand HCL Technologies Ltd
Services promotion and vs. CCE - 2015 (40)
enhancement - STR 369 (Tri. Del.)
increases domestic
business for the
appellant
12. Insurance 1,23,056 For computation and DBOI Global Services
Auxiliary reporting of accrued Pvt Ltd vs. Commr of
Services gratuity on the Service Tax, Mumbai
compensated absence - 2017 (48) STR 157
liability of the (Tri Mumbai)
employees
Commissioner of
Service Tax,
Mumbai-II vs. WNS
Global Services -
2016 (44) STR 454
(Tri. Mumbai)
13. Dry Cleaner's 63,427 For cleanliness of CCE, Chennai vs.
Services office furniture, M/S Fourrts (I)
carpets and curtains Laboratories Pvt Ltd -
sanitized and clean 2009-VIL-30-CESTAT
CHE-ST
14. Outdoor 3,08,535 The appellant avails Microsoft India (R&D)
Caterer's the services of Pvt Ltd vs. Commr of
Services caterers to provide CE & ST, Bengaluru -
food to their 2022 (56) GSTL 29
employees during the (Tri - Bang)
working hours
Commissioner of
Central GST & C. Ex.,
Chennai vs.
Flextronics
Technologies (I) Pvt
Ltd - 2019 (366)
ELT 340 (Tri -
10 ST/51892/2015
Chennai)
Grand Total = 99,18,299
8. Since the identical input services as involved in the present case, were also involved in the Appellant's own case (supra) for the previous period, wherein this Tribunal has considered various case laws and has held that refund cannot be denied on the ground of nexus as well as minor procedural infirmities such as input service invoices are incomplete as the same are not bearing Service Tax Registration No., PAN based Service Tax Registration Number of the service provider, or not being issued on the address of registered premises of the Appellant etc. It may be relevant to reproduce the said findings of the Tribunal:
"8. Further, we find that the CBEC vide its Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010 has clarified as under:
"3.1.2 Therefore, the phrase, "used in" mentioned in Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) to show the nexus also needs to be interpreted in a harmonious manner. The following test can be used to see whether sufficient nexus exists. In case the absence of such input/input service adversely impacts the quality and efficiency of the provision of service exported, it should be considered as eligible input or input service. In the case of BPOs/Call Centres, the services directly relatable to their export business are renting of premises; right to use software; maintenance and repair of equipment; telecommunication facilities; etc. Further, in the instant example, services like outdoor catering or rent-a-cab for pick-up and dropping of its employees to office would also be eligible for credit on account of the fact that these offices run on 24x7 basis and transportation and provision of food to the employees are necessary pre- requisites which the employer has to provide to its employees to ensure that output service is provided efficiently. Similarly, since BPOs/Call Centres require a large manpower, service tax paid on manpower recruitment agency would also be eligible both for taking the credit and the refund thereof. On the other 11 ST/51892/2015 hand, activities like event management, such as company-sponsored dinners/picnics/tours, flower arrangements, mandap keepers, hydrant sprinkler systems (that is, services which can be called as recreational or used for beautification of premises), rest houses etc. prima facie would not appear to impact the efficiency in providing the output services, unless adequate justification is shown regarding their need."
9. Further, we find that in the case of Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd vs. Commr (supra), it was held by the Tribunal that if the CENVAT credit has not been questioned at the time of availment, then the same cannot be questioned at the time of refund. The said decision of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Commr. vs. Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
"It is seen that the refund benefit was denied to the respondent/assessee on the sole ground that there was no nexus between the input services and the output services exported by the appellant/revenue - As the availment of CENVAT credit by the appellant under Rule 3 of the Rules is not called in question, the denial to grant refund under Rule 5 of the Rules without there being any proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of the Rules by seeking to deny the refund on the ground of the respondent/assessee availed CENVAT credit on input services, which according to the appellant/revenue have no nexus with the output service, in the considered view of the Bench, cannot be held to be justified -Reasons assigned by the Tribunal for holding that the respondent/assessee is entitled for grant of refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the Finance Act, does not call for any interference - Both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
[from para 14, 16, 21, 23 of the judgment]"
10. In view of our discussion above and by following the ratios of the above cited decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law; consequently, we set aside the same and allow all four appeals with consequential relief, if any, as per law."
9. Since the issue involved in the present case is identical and has been decided by the Tribunal vide its Final Order dated 09.07.2025, hence, by following the ratio of said decision, we are of 12 ST/51892/2015 the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law; consequently, we set aside the same and allow the appeal of the Appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2026) (S. S. GARG) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (P. ANJANI KUMAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) RA_Saifi