Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Dell International Services India Pvt ... vs Bangalore-Ltu on 1 September, 2025
ST/1771, 1772/2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Service Tax Appeal No. 1771 of 2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 39 to 40/2012 dated 27.03.2012
passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU,
Bangalore
M/s. Dell India Pvt. Ltd.
Divyashree Greens, Ground Floor,
No. 12/1, 12/2a, 13/1a, Appellant(s)
Challaghatta Village,
Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South,
Bangalore - 560 071.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Central
Excise and Service Tax
(Appeals), LTU
JSS Towers, 100ft, Ring Road, Respondent(s)
Banashankari 3rd stage, Bangalore - 560 085.
With Service Tax Appeal No. 1772 of 2012 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 39 to 40/2012 dated 27.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Bangalore M/s. Dell India Pvt. Ltd.
Divyashree Greens, Ground Floor, No. 12/1, 12/2a, 13/1a, Appellant(s) Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South, Bangalore - 560 071.
VERSUS The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), LTU JSS Towers, 100ft, Ring Road, Respondent(s) Banashankari 3rd stage, Bangalore - 560 085.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Syed Peeran, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. M Sreekanth, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent Page 1 of 4 ST/1771, 1772/2012 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR A K JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Final Order No. 21368 - 21369 /2025 DATE OF HEARING: 01.09.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 01.09.2025 DR. D.M. MISRA These two appeals are filed against respective Orders-in- Original, since involved common issues, are taken up together for hearing and disposal.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture and sale of computers, computer parts / components and computer software. They have a manufacturing unit in the SIPCOT Special Economic Zone at Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu. They have filed refund claims of service tax paid on the inputs for use in the SEZ operations of their manufacturing unit at Chennai, of Rs.70,15,020/- for the months November and December 2010 and of Rs.42,83,405/- for the months of January 2011 and February 2011 in terms of Notification No.09/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009. The refund claims for Rs.41,85,741/- and Rs.69,51,393/- have been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the same, they filed appeals before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who in turn rejected their appeals. Hence, the present appeals.
3. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that they are having a centralised Service Tax Registration and filed refund claims in accordance with Notification No.9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009. At their SEZ Unit, the appellant undertakes the authorised operations i.e. Page 2 of 4 ST/1771, 1772/2012 manufacture of computer systems, desktops, laptops, servers and other IT products and related parts, accessories and equipment etc. and service activities including trading of computer systems, Information Technology Enabled Services, Call Centre Services, Transaction Processing, R&D Services etc. They have obtained a list of taxable services required for authorised operations of the SEZ approved by the Unit Approval Committee vide letter dated 22.01.2010 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner approving two lists of services comprising of 37 most commonly used services and 22 services specifically required by the appellant's unit. The learned advocate has further submitted that the service tax paid on various taxable services were wholly consumed in authorised operations of the SEZ; however, the refund of service tax was denied on the ground that since the amending Notification No.15/2009-ST dated 20.05.2009 provides for unconditional ab initio exemption to such taxable services fully consumed in the SEZ, no refund claim required to be filed and secondly there is no nexus between the authorized operations and input services used; consequently, their refund claims were rejected. He has further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and covered by the judgment in the appellant's own case reported in Dell India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2024(12) TMI 602 - CESTAT Bangalore]. Further, he has submitted that also the question of nexus between the approved services and the authorised operations of SEZ cannot be questioned once the approval from the Unit Approval Committee has been accorded to the appellant. In support, the appellant has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case reported at Dell India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2025(6) TMI 682 - CESTAT Bangalore].
4. Learned AR for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
Page 3 of 4ST/1771, 1772/2012
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. We find that the issue is no more res integra and addressed by this Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No.21211/2024 dated 05.12.2024. Referring to the principle of law laid down in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST (LTU), Mumbai [2013(29) STR 393 (Tri. Mum.)] and the Final Order No.22271-22273/2017 dated 26.09.2017, in the appellant's own case, this Tribunal allowed the appeals filed against rejection of refund claims on the above grounds. This order was also later followed by this Tribunal in the appellant's own case reported at 2025(6) TMI 682 - CESTAT Bangalore. In view of the consistent opinion of this Tribunal on the issue of refund claims filed in similar circumstances for previous period, we do not see any reason in not following the precedents. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Operative part of this Order was pronounced in Open Court on conclusion of the hearing.) (D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (A K JYOTISHI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Raja....
Page 4 of 4