Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Virtusa India Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Hyderabad on 5 April, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Bench SMB Court I Appeal No.ST/28293/2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.73/2013(H-II) S.Tax dt. 12/07/2013 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? M/s. Virtusa India Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant(s) Vs. CCE, Hyderabad ..Respondent(s)
Appearance Shri S. Thirumalai, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Jacob, Assistant Commissioner(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing:05/04/2016 Date of decision:05/04/2016 FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of refund of service tax paid on various input services.
2. The appellants are engaged in providing taxable services under the category Information Technology Software Services which are exported. The appellant is an EOU registered under STPI scheme. They filed a refund claim for the period April 2009 to June 2009 for an amount of Rs.39,81,404/- with respect to service tax paid on various input services used for export of services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14/03/2006.
3. The original authority rejected the claim stating that the claim is time barred. The appellants filed appeal and vide order dated 29/02/2012, the Commissioner(Appeals) directed the lower authority to examine afresh the entire issue. Pursuant to this, the original authority sanctioned refund of Rs.32,72,601/- and disallowed refund of Rs.7,08,803/- on the ground that there is no nexus between input service and output service exported. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the rejection of refund and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal.
4. I have heard the submissions made by either side. At the outset, it has to be stated that the period involved is prior to 01/04/2011, when the definition of input services had a wider ambit as it included the words activities relating to business. The various services of which the refund was disallowed are Renting of Immovable Property Services, Management Business Consultant Services, Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agencys Services, Rent-a-cab Services, Works contract / Management, Maintenance and Repair Services, Cleaning Services, Club or Association Services, Banking and Other Financial Services, Outdoor Catering Services, Advertisement Services, General Insurance Services and Supply of Tangible Goods Services.
5. The counsel for the appellant has explained the purposes for which each of the above services was availed by appellant. In a nutshell, it can be said that some of the services are expressly mentioned in the definition of input service and the rest would fall under the category of activities related to business.
6. In the appellants own case for different period, this Tribunal vide Final Order No.A/30065/2016 dated 20/01/2016 and Final Order No.A/30160/2016 dated 04/02/2016 has allowed refund in respect of the above services. Further the issue is settled in the cases of Coca Cola India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune [2009(242) ELT 168 (Bom.)] and CCE Vs. HCL Technologies [(2014) 52 Taxmann.com 393 (All.)]. Following the ratio laid in the above judgments, I hold that appellant is eligible for refund of the above services.
7. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
(Operative part of this order was pronounced in court on conclusion of the hearing) SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Raja.
2