Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc, Ce & St, Hyderabad-Iv vs M/S. Knoah Solutions Pvt. Ltd on 23 December, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Bench SMB
Court I
Appeal No. ST/1200/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2010 (H-IV) (D) S. Tax dated 26.02.2010 passed by CC, CE & ST (Appeals-II), Hyderabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad-IV
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. Knoah Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Shri. P.S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant.
Shri. Venkata Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent.
Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Date of hearing: 23/12/2016 Date of decision: 23/12/2016 FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The above appeal is filed by the Department against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order passed by original authority sanctioning the refund.
2. The case put forward by the Department as argued by the Ld. AR, Shri. P.S. Reddy is that, according to the Department the activities provided by the appellant (BPO call centre services) falls under the category of Information Technology Software Service and not Business Auxiliary Service. It is the case of the Department that Information Technology Software Service is not taxable service and therefore the respondent is not eligible for refund.
3. On behalf of the respondent, the Ld. Counsel Shri. Venkata Prasad, submitted that in the appellants own case for different periods the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal has held that the output services fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and not Information Technology Software Services. He also argued that the period involved being July, 2008 to September, 2008, even if it is considered as Information Technology Software Services, these services have become taxable, w.e.f. 16.05.2008. In view thereof, the appeal filed by the Department has no merits. The appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced & dictated in open court) SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Lakshmi.
3