Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Eygbs India Llp vs Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bengaluru ... on 20 April, 2022
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.2
Service Tax Appeal No. 20903 of 2021
(Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 213-214/2021 dated 17.08.2021 passed by the
Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Traffic & Transit Management Centre, BMTC
Building, No.9, 4th Floor, Above BMTC Bus Stand, Domlur, Bangalore - 560 071)
M/s. EYGBS (India) LLP : Appellant
RMZ Infinity, Tower C, III Floor,
Old Madras Road, Benniganahalli,
Bangalore - 560 016
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Central Tax : Respondent
Bengaluru East BMTC Building, Old Airport Road, Domlur, Bangalore - 560 071 WITH Service Tax Appeal No. 20904 of 2021 (Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 213-214/2021 dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Traffic & Transit Management Centre, BMTC Building, No.9, 4th Floor, Above BMTC Bus Stand, Domlur, Bangalore - 560 071) M/s. EYGBS (India) LLP : Appellant RMZ Infinity, Tower C, III Floor, Old Madras Road, Benniganahalli, Bangalore - 560 016 VERSUS The Commissioner of Central Tax : Respondent Bengaluru East BMTC Building, Old Airport Road, Domlur, Bangalore - 560 071 APPEARANCE:
Shri Prasad Paranjappe, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.B. Nanaiah, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER NOS. 20197 - 20198/ 2022 DATE OF HEARING:29.03.2022 DATE OF DECISION: 20.04.2022 2 Appeal. No(s).: ST/20903 & 20904/2021-SM Order :
These appeals are filed against the common impugned Orders-in-Appeal No. 213-214/2021 dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Bangalore and the only issue involved in these appeals is: Whether the denial of refund claim of the Service Tax paid on input services used by the appellant in its authorized operations in SEZ units is correct?
2. Heard Shri Prasad Paranjappe, Learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri K.B. Nanaiah, Learned Assistant Commissioner (Authorized Representative) for the Revenue.
3.1 Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit, at the outset, that the services which were availed, on which Service Tax was paid, namely:-
(i) Rent-a-Cab Service (ii) Business Support Service (iii) Accommodation Service, and (iv) Travel Agent Service
are all covered in the Uniform List of Services which are declared by the Governmentto be required for performing authorized operations, except the other service, namely,Management Consultant Service.
3.2 He would also submit that the Uniform List of Services was only indicative and it has been held consistently by various Benches of the CESTAT that the other input services, as long as they are used by SEZ units for its authorized operations, are required to be allowed. In this regard, he relied on the following orders of various Benches of the CESTAT in his support:
3Appeal. No(s).: ST/20903 & 20904/2021-SM
(i) M/s. Metlife Global Operations Support Center (P.) Ltd.
v. Commr., Service Tax, New Delhi [2021 (46) G.S.T.L. 418 (Tri. - Del.)];
(ii) M/s. Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commr. of Central Tax, Bangalore [2018 (9) TMI 258 - CESTAT Bangalore];
(iii) Commr. of Central Excise, Mangalore v. Mangalore SEZ Ltd. [2017 (49) S.T.R. 311 (Tri. - Bang.)];
(iv) M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt.
Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Tax, Bengaluru East [2021 (49) G.S.T.L. 11 (Tri. - Bang.)];
(v) M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Commr. ofC.Ex. & S.T. (LTU), Mumbai [2013 (29) S.T.R. 393 (Tri. - Mum.)];
(vi) Commr. of Service Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Southern Cyber Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (7) TMI 174 - CESTAT Chennai];
(vii) M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India [2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)];
(viii) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Commr. ofC.Ex. & S.T., Rajkot [2015 (37) S.T.R. 360 (Tri. - Ahmd.)].
4. Per contra, Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue supported the findings of the lower authorities.
5. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the orders relied upon during the course of arguments; and I am prima facie convinced that the Revenue has not denied the fact that the services in question were used by the SEZ unit for its authorized operations. Hence, the denial of refund for want of documents is not sustainable.
6.1 The Learned Bangalore Bench of the CESTAT in the case of M/s. Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has considered the case of a similarly placed taxpayer and held as under:
4Appeal. No(s).: ST/20903 & 20904/2021-SM "6.1 After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal ofmaterial on record, I find that the show-
cause notices were issued on twogrounds viz. certain input services are not covered in the definition of inputservice under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules and hence not eligible andsecondly non-submission of documents required to process the claims.Further I find that Order-in-Original as well as impugned order, both haverejected the refund claims on other grounds which are not taken in theshow-cause notices and therefore they have travelled beyond the show-cause notices which is not legally permissible in view of various decisionscited supra by the appellant. Further I find that the impugned order alsoviolates the principles of natural justice because the appellant has not beengiven the reasonable opportunity to defend himself on the ground on whichthe refund claims have been rejected. The other grounds on which therefund claims have been rejected by the impugned order is that theappellant has not produced the approved list of specified input servicesfrom the UAC of SEZ which is a mandatory condition as per theCommissioner(Appeals). In reply to this argument, the learned counsel submitted that in view of the settled legal position by various decisionsrelied upon by him, condition in respect of approval from UAC is not amandatory requirement as the SEZ Act vide Section 51 of SEZ Act willhave overriding effect over the provisions of any other law. Thereforekeeping in view the intention of the Government in enacting the SEZ Actand giving special fiscal concessions to SEZs, I am of the consideredopinion that this is only a procedural and is not a mandatory condition asheld by the Commissioner(Appeals). Further the decisions relied upon bythe appellant clearly hold that the SEZ Act has a overriding effect overother laws. Therefore this ground on the basis of which refund claims havebeen rejected is not tenable in law."
6.2 I also find that in the other orders relied upon by the Learned Advocate for the appellant, more or less similar views have been expressed consistently by the co-ordinate Benches.
7. In view of the above, therefore, I do not see any reasons or justification to sustain the impugned order as well as the denial of refund.
5Appeal. No(s).: ST/20903 & 20904/2021-SM
8. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 20.04.2022) (P. DINESHA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sdd