Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Zenta Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai Ii on 25 June, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. I
APPEAL NO. ST/482/11 Mum
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. RBT/172/2011 dated 25.04.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai I.
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Zenta Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai II
Respondent
Appearance Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for appellant Shri V.K. Agarwal, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) For Respondent CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 25.06.2012 Date of Decision : 25.06.2012 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order denying refund claim of Rs.29,11,427/- on the premise that the services rendered were exempted service to the extent of Rs.2,93,430/ and a sum of Rs.77,414/- on some miscellaneous grounds.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the business of rendering business process outsourcing services and collection of services. These services are classified under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. As the service recipients are located outside India therefore, the applicant availed input service. Though their service is giving benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 dated 28.06.2003, they could not utilised the CENVAT credit. Therefore, they filed refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A show-cause notice was issued to deny refund as CENVAT credit availed by them on input service has gone into output service which are exempt as per the Notification cited herein above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are in appeal before us.
3. Shri Prasad Paranjape, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has not pressed for the refund of denial of service credit Rs.77,414/- to buy peace specifically in this case but he wants to keep the issue alive in subsequent matters with regard to denial of refund of Rs.28,34,013/-, he submitted that in their own case vide Order No. A/251/2012/CSTB/WZB Gr.I dated 13.03.2012, for the earlier period, this Tribunal held that they are entitled for refund claim, therefore, they may be allowed for the refund of Rs.28,34,013/-.
4. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the records.
4.1 As the learned Counsel has not pressed the refund claim of Rs.77,414/- to buy peace therefore, they are not dealing with the refund claim of Rs.77,414/- on merits. 4.2 With regard to the refund claim of Rs.28,34,013/-as held by this Tribunal in the applicants own case vide order stated here-in-above, the appellants are entitled for refund claim. Accordingly, we allow the refund claim of Rs.28,34,013/- in accordance with law.
5. Appeal is disposed of in the above term.
(Pronounced in open Court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3