Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ge India Exports Pvt. Ltd vs Cc,Ce&St, Hyderabad-Ii on 27 April, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Bench SMB Court I Appeal No.ST/28027/2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.91/2013(H-II) S.Tax dt. 22/07/2013 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. GE India Exports Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant(s) Vs. CC,CE&ST, Hyderabad-II ..Respondent(s)
Appearance Shri Abhishek Rastogi, CA for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Jacob, Asst. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing:06/04/2016 Date of decision:.
FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The appellant challenges the impugned order which disallowed the refund of credit on input services.
2. The appellant is engaged in providing consulting engineer services and Information Technology Services which are exported to entities located outside India. It is a 100% EOU and is registered with Service Tax Department. The appellant filed refund claim for the unutilized CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006. The original authority sanctioned an amount of Rs.48,58,217/- and rejected an amount to the tune of Rs.6,38,036/-. The reason for rejection is that input invoices are addressed to unregistered premises of appellant and that the input services do not have nexus with the output services. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). As per the order impugned herein, the Commissioner(Appeals) relying upon the judgment laid in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. [2009(240) ELT 640 (SC)] upheld the rejection. Hence the present appeal.
3. The learned consultant on behalf of the appellant submitted the details of disallowance as per the following table. In addition, he submitted that an amount of Rs.387/- is not contested by the appellant in the present appeal. So the disputed amount in this appeal is limited to Rs.4,82,146/-, which is detailed below:-
Description Amount disallowed (Rs.) Input invoice addressed to electronic city which is not a service tax registered premises 3,31,824 Input service credit availed on car parking charges and Maintenance charges 1,05,614 Housekeeping services on which CENVAT availed are not related to export of output services 28,711 The input services on which CENVAT availed are not related to export of service 15,997 Total 4,82,146
4. Shri Abishek Rastogi appearing for the appellant explained each service and their necessity / nexus with the output services. Further he submitted that the judgment rendered in Maruthi Suzuki case deals with interpretation of inputs and not input service. The view laid in Maruthi Suzuki has been doubted and referred to Larger Bench. The Larger Bench of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd., UP Vs. CCE, Meerut-I [2016-TIOL-20-SC-CX-LB] answered the reference stating that the word include does not have a restrictive meaning. It is submitted that the authorities below have wrongly applied the judgment laid in Maruthi Suzuki case.
5. It is submitted that another reason for disallowing the credit is that the premises/address of appellant shown in the invoice issued by service provider is not a registered premises. He adverted to Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and argued that the said Rule does not mandate that the premises of service recipient has to be a registered premises. It is sufficient that the name and address of service recipient is shown in the invoice. He contended that the refund has been wrongly denied.
5. Against this, the learned AR, Shri Rajesh Jacob vehemently supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the credit has been rightly rejected.
6. I have heard the submissions and perused the appeal papers. The two reasons on which the refund has been rejected have been explained by Shri Abhishek Rastogi appearing for the appellant. I am convinced by the arguments put forward on behalf of the appellant. I find that the rejection of refund is not just or proper. The appellant is eligible for refund of the amounts shown in the table. In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is partly allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
(Pronounced in open court on .) SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Raja.
4