Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Robert Bosch Engineering And Business ... vs Bangalore-Ltu on 30 January, 2026
Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017,
ST/21076/2017,
ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2
Service Tax Appeal No. 20242 of 2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 122-124/2016/LTU dated 24.11.2016 passed
by the Commissioner (Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Bangalore.)
M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering
And Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
No. 123, Industrial Layout, Hosur Road,
Koramangala,
Banagalore - 560 008. ....Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise
and Service Tax,
Large Taxpayer Unit,
JSS Towers, 100 Feet Ring Road,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 085. ....Respondent(s)
WITH
(i) Service Tax Appeal No. 20243 of 2017 (M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Ltd.
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 122-124/2016/LTU dated 24.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Bangalore.)
(ii) Service Tax Appeal No. 20244 of 2017 (M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Ltd.
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 122-124/2016/LTU dated 24.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Bangalore.)
(iii) Service Tax Appeal No. 21076 of 2017 (M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Ltd.
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 75/2017/LTU dated 11.04.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Bangalore.)
(iv) Service Tax Appeal No. 21177 of 2017 (M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Ltd. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 81 to 84/2017/LTU dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Bangalore.)
(v) Service Tax Appeal No. 21178 of 2017 (M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Ltd. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 81 to 84/2017/LTU dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Bangalore.) Page 1 of 21 Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017
(vi) Service Tax Appeal No. 21179 of 2017 (M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Ltd.
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 81 to 84/2017/LTU dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Bangalore.)
(vii) Service Tax Appeal No. 21180 of 2017 (M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Ltd.
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 81 to 84/2017/LTU dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Bangalore.)
(viii) Service Tax Appeal No. 21247 of 2017 (M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Ltd. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 97/2017/LTU dated 12.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Bangalore.) APPEARANCE:
Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain, Chartered Accountant (CA) for the Appellant Mr. M. A. Jithendra, Asst. Commr. (AR) for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. P.A. AUGUSTIAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE SMT. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Final Order Nos. 20082-20090 /2026 Date of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date of Decision: 30.01.2026 PER : P.A. AUGUSTIAN The issue in the present appeal is regarding refund of unutilized CENVAT credit of input service. Appellant is an 100% Software Oriented Unit and Export of Services as well as providing services of DTA. Appellant had filed nine (9) refund claims on unutilized CENVAT Credit for the period from June 2012 - September 2014 however against claim of Rs.74,92,20,484/- only an amount of Rs.35,88,48,080/- is allowed by the Adjudication Authority. Aggrieved by the said orders, appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) also allowed Rs.25,67,86,392/- and denied refund of Rs.13,35,86,012/-. Aggrieved by said orders present appeals are filed. Details of the appeals are given below:-Page 2 of 21
Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 Sl. Appeal No. Period Order No. No. (CESTAT) Appealed with (CESTAT) 1 ST/20242/2017 Jul-12 to Sept-12 OIA No. 122- 2 ST/20243/2017 Oct-12 to Dec-12 124/2016/LTU 3 ST/20244/2017 Jan-13 to Mar-13 4 ST/21076/2017 Apr-13 to Jun-13 OIA No. 75/2017/LTU 5 ST/21177/2017 Jul-13 to Sept-13 6 ST/21180/2017 Oct-13 to Dec-13 OIA No. 81 to 7 ST/21178/2017 Jan-14 to Mar-14 84/2017/LTU 8 ST/21179/2017 Apr-14 to Jun-14 9 ST/21247/2017 Jul-14 to Sept-14 OIA No. 97/2017/LTU
2. When the appeals came up hearing, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) for the appellant submits that the considerable part of the claim made by the appellant which is rejected by the Adjudication Authority / Appellate Authority is regarding Business Support Service (BSS) and it is denied on the ground that there is no nexus between the input and output services. The total amount rejected on the Business Support Service (BSS) is Rs.5,92,82,435/-. As regarding Visa Fee and Personnel Baggage, Learned Chartered Account (CA) submits that the appellant has large number of employees for rendering output service and for execution of the project and these employees have to move from one location to another. For movement of such person certain expenses gone by the appellant including visa fee and personnel baggage, translation services etc.
3. Learned Chartered Account (CA) further submits that in appellant's own case for the period from October 2010 - December 2010 said claim was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Order-in-Appeal No. 81/2013 dated 19.03.2013 and said claim was also allowed for the period from April 2011 - June 2011 vide Order-in-Original No. 103R/2013 dated 15.10.2012. As per the said order, credit was allowed on other inputs services including translation, video shooting, photo copying, technical data and voice recording services. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) further submits that the appellant had discharged tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) for import of service and such Page 3 of 21 Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 services has direct nexus with output service. Even as per the report of the monitoring committee of service tax audit held that the input services availed by the appellant are eligible for input services. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) also draws attention to the Final Order No. 21397/2016 dated 13.12.2016 and Final Order No. 23114-23130/2017 dated 08.12.2017 in this regard. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) further submits that the issue is no more res integra and covered by the following decisions:-
i. Megma Design Automation (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2015 (40) S.T.R. 800 (Tri. - Bang.)] ii. HCL Technologies Ltd Vs. Commissioner Of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Noida [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)] iii. Castrol India Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (291) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] iv. Kijiji (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Mumbai- I [2013 (32) S.T.R. 661 (Tri. - Mumbai)] v. Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs. M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM]
4. As regarding General Insurance Services, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that an amount of Rs.2,48,27,198/- is denied on the ground that health insurance for the employees or for personal use. Since it is not related to output services, it is denied. In this regard, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that the credit pertains to travel insurance and employee insurance. Since the travel is carried out exclusively for official purpose and not provided as welfare measure to the employees. It is provided to protect the business interest and appellant is eligible for the credit as claimed.
5. As regarding the claim of Rs.21,57,573/- related to Life Insurance Service, Learned CA submits that the appellant is collecting some amount from employees towards life insurance and discharging appropriate service tax on such recoveries. Hence the company is availing credit only to the extent of output liability towards the same.Page 4 of 21
Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 Since the company is discharging tax on such transactions, it has direct nexus in providing the service. Hence, the appellant has rightly availed the credit on the same. Further, the Order in Appeal is silent on the eligibility of these services and hence, the impugned OIA is not a speaking Order.
6. As regarding the claim of Rs.1,36,05,568/- is related to services falling in other than negative list i.e., Life Insurance & Rent a cab service. Said claim is rejected on the ground that rent a cab service has been excluded from definition of "input services" in terms of Clause (B) of Rule 2(1) ibid., therefore even though the same was used for conveyance of staff, due to the specific exclusion in Clause 'C' of Rule 2(1) ibid., the same does not remain as admissible 'input service'. In this regard Learned CA submits that credit/refund claimed by Appellant on 'Employee Parental Insurance' and denied on the ground that does not have nexus with the provision of their output service. Hence it cannot be treated as 'input service' as the medical insurance of the dependents (parents) of the employees being a welfare measure and for personal use and consumption by employees, is not related to the Appellant for providing their output service and it is specifically excluded from the definition of 'input service' in rule 2(I) ibid., vide exclusion Clause 'C' therein. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that though the services are excluded from the definition of input services, the appellant is collecting some amount from employees towards transportation and discharging appropriate service tax on such recoveries. Hence, the appellant is availing credit only to the extent of output liability towards the same. Since the appellant is discharging tax on such transactions, it has got direct nexus in providing service. Similarly, Appellant is collecting some amount from employees towards life insurance and discharging appropriate service tax on such recoveries. Appellant is availing credit only to the extent of output liability towards the same since the appellant is discharging tax on such transactions. The issue is considered in appellant's own case and covered by the Final Order No. 23114-23130/2017 dated 08.12.2017. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) also relied on the following decisions:-
Page 5 of 21Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 i. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd [2011 TIOL-866-HC-KAR- ST] ii. JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-III [2016 (41) S.T.R. 990 (Tri. Mumbai)] iii. HCL Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Noida [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)] iv. CCE Vs. Cable Corporation of India [2010-TIOL-777-HC- MUM] v. Bell Ceramics Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2010-TIOL-1761- Tri] vi. Titan Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. EX., Chennai-III [ 2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 75 (Tri-Chennai)] vii. FIEM Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai III [TS-149- CESTAT-2016(CHNY)-ST] [Final Order No. 40554 - / 2016 dated 29-Mar-2016] viii. Willis Processing Services (India) Private Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai-II, [TS-5-CESTAT-2016(Mum)-ST] [Order No. A/85189 to 85205/16/SMB dated -06-Jan-2016].
7. As regarding refund of Rs.70,88,702/- related to Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service, on the ground in respect of packing, labour, local transportation, freight paid and handling charges, First Appellate Authority rejected the claim on the ground that there is no plea by the appellant on any of them. In this regard, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that the Company imports various equipment's like computers, networking equipments, communication equipments, etc which are crucial for providing services. Without these equipments, the provision of service would be hampered. Hence, all such services are activity relating to business and covered under the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The monitoring committee of Service Tax Audit had deliberated the issue and held that the input services (i.e., Cleaning Services, Air Travel Expenses, Re- location services/Business Support Services) availed by the appellant are eligible input services and the Cenvat Credit claimed on such input services is rightly eligible under law. Learned CA further submits that the Page 6 of 21 Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 issue was considered vide Order-in-Original No.103R/2013 dated 15- Oct-2012 for the period from April 2011 - June 2011 and it is submitted that the "Input invoices for packing and moving items from their one unit to their different STPI Units located in different parts of Bangalore and also to their unit at Coimbatore are for/in relation to providing outward services only and merits inclusion while computing the refund amount under this head". Learned CA also relied on the following decisions and OIO/OIA/Final Order reference:-
i. OIO No. 151R/2012 dated 16-Jul-2012 [Jan'11 to Mar'11] ii. OIO-104R/2013-LTU dated 25-Feb-2013 [Jul 11-Sep'11] iii. Final Order No.21397/2016 dated 13-Dec-2016 iv. Final Order No.23114 - 23130/2017 dated 08-Dec-2017 [Apr-08 to Jun-2012] v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs. M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] vi. Xilink India Technology Services Vs. C.C., C. Ex. & S.T., Hyderabad-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)]
8. As regarding refund of Rs.37,89,589/- related to Management Consultancy Service, it is including retainer fee, background verification, service charge for projection of gratuity, First Appellate Authority rejected the claim on the ground that there is no plea by the appellant on any of them. In this regard, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that the management of any organization needs a lot of technical knowledge on various laws, procedures, process of development in the field of business. Such services are received by the Appellant from management or business consultants who are experienced in handling such issues and are necessary for provision of output services by the appellant. The appellant has large employee base without whom the rendition of output services would not become possible. The Company also hires high quality human resource and ensures that the quality of the services rendered by the Company is highest. In all these, in order to ensure that the credentials of the employee's background are adequately verified, background check Page 7 of 21 Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 becomes critical and part of the employee recruitment process. Learned CA also relied on the following decisions and OIO/OIA/Final Order in this regard:-
i. OIA No. 98/2013 [Jul 10 to Sept 10] and 99/2013 [Jan'11 to Mar'11] dated 12-Apr-2013 ii. Final Order No. 21397/2016 dated 13-Dec-2016 iii. OIA No. 122-124/2016 LTU [Jul'12 to Mar'13] dated 24- Nov-2016 iv. Heartland Bangalore Transcription Services (P) Ltd. v. CST [2011 (21) STR 430 (Tri-Bang)] v. Semco Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (Unit I & II) Vs. CCE Pune-1 [2011-TIOL-965-CESTAT Mum] vi. Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE Bangalore [2011 (21) STR 460 (Tri-Bang)] vii. Castrol India Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (291) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] viii. Commissioner of S.T., Mumbai- Ii Vs. MMS Maritime (India) Pvt. Ltd [2016 (41) S.T.R. 869 (Tri-Mumbai)]
9. As regarding refund of Rs.18,97,671/- related to Commercial Training or Coaching Service for Jul 12 to Sept 12, the appellant have trained their employees in fire fighting. It is denied on the ground that this does not appear to have any feasible relation/nexus with the appellant's output service. In this regard, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that the competitive environment has necessitated the appellant to provide the facility of coaching and training services to its employees. It is an essential service for the appellant in rendering its output service effectively by training the employees and enhancing the employees' technical knowledge and presentation skills. Hence, the said services are an essential requirement to the business activities and are in relation to the output services rendered. Further, they submit that by providing firefighting and first aid training to the employees, the appellant can mitigate the loss in case of emergency. Learned CA relied on the following decisions and OIO/OIA/Final Order reference:-
Page 8 of 21Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 i. OIO-235R/2016 dated 16-Jun-2016 [Jain'14 to Mar'14] ii. Final Order No.23114 - 23130/2017 dated 08-Dec-2017 [Apr-08 to Jun-2012] iii. Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST Hyderabad-IV [TS-240-CESTAT-2016-ST]
10. As regarding refund of Rs.7,49,169/- related to Cleaning and House Keeping services, it is denied on the ground that no plea made by the appellant on any of them. Further held that "service rewards" is in the nature of personal use for consumption of their employees and is specifically excluded in exclusion clause 'C' of the definition of input services in Rule 2 (I) ibid., In this regard, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that the cleaning services are provided to ensure that the place from where the services are performed is hygienic to ensure that employees perform the services effectively. In the absence of such services, the performance of its services will of be grossly hampered. Further, Cleaning of BMTC buses is also precautionary health measure. Thus, cleaning services are an activity relating to business and accordingly ought to be covered under the definition of "input service"
under Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Learned CA relied on the following decisions and OIO/OIA/Final Order reference:-
i. Vodafone South Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax - Chandigarh-II [2015-TIOL 1652-DEL] ii. Emcon Technologies India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise Banaglore [2013 (31) S.T.R 441(Tri.- Bang)] iii. Paper Products Ltd. Vs. CCE [2013 (30) STR 310(Tri - Mum)] iv. NTF India [2013 (30) STR 575 (Tri-Del)] v. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE [2010 (254) E.L.T. 301 (Tri.)] vi. Rotork Control (India) P. Ltd. v. CCE [2010 (20) S.T.R. 684 (Tri.)] vii. CCE, Salem v. ITC Ltd. [2011 (268) E.L.T. 89 (Tri.-
Chennai)] Page 9 of 21 Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 viii. CST Bangalore Vs. Yokogawa IA Technologies India P Ltd [2011 (24) STR 465 (Tri-Bang)] ix. HCL Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Noida [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. Del.)] x. HCL Technologies Ltd. Vs. CCEx, Noida [2015 (40) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. Del.)] xi. O-i-A No.98/2013 [Jul 10 to Sept 10] dated 12-Apr-
2013xii. O-i-A No.99/2013 [Jan'11 to Mar'11] dated 12-Apr-
2013xiii. O-i-A No. JMJ/45/2012, dated 23-Apr-2012 [Apr 08 to Sept'08] xiv. O-i-A No. 81 to 84/2017/LTU dated 02-May-2017 xv. OIO-348R/2017-LTU dated 22-Sep-201 [Apr'14 to Jun'14] xvi. ΟΙΟ-95R/2017-LTU dated 14-Feb-2017 [Oct'14 to Dec'14] xvii. OIO-61R/2017-LTU dated 17-Jan-2017 [Jul'14 to Sep'14] xviii. OIO-181R/2017-LTU dated 24-Mar-2017 [Jan'16 to Mar'16] xix. OIO-180R/2017-LTU dated 23-Mar-2017 [Oct'15 to Dec'15] xx. OIO-179R/2017-LTU dated 22-Mar-2017 [Jul 15 to Sep'15] xxi. OIO-178R/2017-LTU dated 15-Mar-2017 [Apr 15 to Jun'15]
11. As regarding refund of Rs.5,36,566/- related to Maintenance or repair service, on the ground that in respect of testing, food testing, etc.. the appellant, First Appellate Authority rejected the claim on the ground that there is no plea by the appellant on any of them. In this regard, Learned CA submits that such testing is required to ensure safety of employees working in the company. Bad quality of food and Page 10 of 21 Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 water etc. may affect the health of the employees and indirectly effect the provision of output service. Hence, it has nexus with the output services rendered. Learned CA relied on the following decisions and OIO/OIA/Final Order reference:-
i. OIA No. 81/2013 [Oct'10 to Dec'10] dated 19-Mar-2013 ii. OIA No. 99/2013 [Jan'11 to Mar'11] dated 12-Apr-2013 iii. ΟΙΟ-103R/2013 [Apr'11-Jun'11] dated 15-Oct-2012 iv. OIO-104R/2013-LTU [ Jul'11-Sep'11] dated 25-Feb-2013 v. Final Order No. 21397/2016 dated 13-Dec-2016 vi. OIA No. 122-124/2016 LTU [ Jul'12 to Mar'13] dated 24- Nov-2016 vii. ISMT Ltd. Vs. CCE&C [2010-TIOL-27-CESTAT-MUM] viii. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. CCE [2010-TIOL-983- CESTAT-MUM]
12. As regarding refund of Rs.3,88,313/- related to sponsorship service, on the ground that sponsorship services are not specifically included in the definition of input services. In this regard, the appellant preferred an appeal to learned Commissioner, however the learned Commissioner has not issued any speaking order. Learned CA submits that these services are very essential for the appellant to promote its products and information for ensuring input better marketing. The appellant does so by sponsoring events which are attended by channel partners thereby having a positive impact on the trade. Therefore, the said service is very essential for rendering output services and the appellant is eligible for refund as "input service" under Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Further, submits that the impugned Order is silent on the eligibility of this service and hence, it is not a speaking Order.
13. As regarding refund of Rs.2,44,399/- related to service of providing accommodation in hotels inns & Guest House, it is also denied on the ground that this service is covered under the exclusion Clause 'C' Page 11 of 21 Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 of the definition 'input service', as these were used for personal consumption and use of their employees. It is further held that the utility of this service clearly pertains to the welfare of their employees, primarily for their personal use. In this regard, Learned CA submits that the said services are essential service requirement for the appellant since the employees will have to visit various place to execute the services or finalize the deals with prospective buyers. Further, the appellant also recruits employees from different locations of India. In such cases the Company provides temporary residential facilities to such employees. In absence of such temporary facility, delivery of service in time may be hampered. Thus this service is also covered under the definition of "input service" and not for personal consumption of the employee as held in the impugned order.
14. As regarding refund of Rs.1,88,882/- related to Goods Transport Agency Service, it is denied on the ground that this service does appear to be pertinent to the Goods Transport Agency Service in as much as, it does not throw any light as to how this service was specifically used by appellant in the provision of their output service. Further, specific finding is made that appellant had used such service in relation to transport of 'Personal Belongings and Household Goods', Learned CA submits the appellant imports various equipments like computers, networking equipments, communication equipments, etc which are crucial for providing services. Without these equipments, the provision of service would be hampered. Hence, all such services are an activity relating to business and accordingly ought to be covered under the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
15. As regarding refund of Rs.1,83,973/- related to Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service, it is denied on the ground that activities like translation services, works contract services and membership fee etc.., do not relate to input service and rejected the claim. In this regard, Learned CA submits that the employees play an important role in the appellant business operations. To hire such employees, the appellant procures services of manpower recruitment Page 12 of 21 Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 agencies. Further, translation services which were used for providing training to employees and without such services, the appellant may not be able to render its output services and are thus very essential. Further, such services are specifically included in the definition of "input service". Further, submits that the impugned Order is silent on the eligibility of this service and hence, it is not a speaking Order. Learned CA relied on the following decisions and OIO/OIA/Final Order reference:-
i. HCL Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Cus,, C. Ex. & S.T., Noida [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)] ii. CCE Vs. Deloitte Tax services (P) Ltd [2008-TIOL-629- CESTAT-BANG] iii. COMMISSIONER OF S.T., 5- MUMBAI- II Vs. MMS MARITIME (INDIA) PVT. LTD [2016 (41) S.T.R. 869 -(Tri- Mumbai)] iv. Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST Hyderabad-IV [TS-7 240-CESTAT-2016-ST] v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services MUM] [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-
vi. XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri-Hyd.)] vii. Mainstay Teleservices Ltd Vs. CST Bangalore [2015 (39) STR 693 (Tri-Bang)] viii. CCE, Bangalore Vs. Jubliant Biosys Ltd [2016 (42) STR 729 (Tri-Bang)] ix. O-i-A No. 81/2013 dated 19-Mar-2013, [Oct'10 to Dec'10] x. O-i-A No. 99/2013 [Jan'11 to Mar'11] dated 12-Apr-2013 xi. ΟΙΟ-103R/2013 dated 15-Oct-2012 [Apr'11-Jun'11] xii. OIO-104R/2013-LTU dated 25-Feb-2013[ Jul'11-Sep'11] xiii. OIO-235R/2016 dated 16-Jun-2016 [Jan'14 to Mar'14] xiv. Final Order No.23114 - 23130/2017 dated 08-Dec-2017 [Apr-08 to Jun-2012] Page 13 of 21 Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017
16. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) also draws our attention to details of each appeal and nature of services against each claim which is denied by the Adjudication Authority / Appellate Authorities. As regarding the claim of Rs.97,80,795/- denied against Appeal No. ST/21178/2017 (Rs.77,66,518/-) and ST/21179/2017 (Rs.20,14,200/-). Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that the said claim was denied due to adoption of the wrong method of computation. Learned Chartered Accountant further submits that as per the Notification No.27/2012 specific formula is prescribed for computation of the refund. In this regard, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) draws our attention to the finding in the impugned order as produced below:-
"22. Eligibility for refund as per the formula:- In view of the above, I hold that the assessee is eligible for refund of input service tax credit availed on various services/categories as discussed above amounting to Rs.12,11,27,838/-. After utilization of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.2,90,39,080/- paid for Domestic Services for the quarter January 14 to March 14 the net eligible Credit is Rs. 9,20,88,758/-. However, the actual amount of refund has to be worked out on the basis of the formula specified under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004. The assessee has reversed an amount of Rs. 13,06,25,841/- in terms of Notification No. 27/2012 CE(NT) dated 16.06.2012, on the refund claimed and the reversal is reflected in the ST-3 returns for the period October 14 to March' 15. As per the Form A submitted by the claimant, the export turnover of services is Rs. 393,06,83,466/-and the total turnover is Rs.394,58,67,712/- However on verification of the Bank realization certificate, Appendix 22A, I find that the claimant has realized Rs.325,79,35,359/-(Rs.179,58,08,053/- Jan, Rs.41,85,51,156/- Feb, Rs.104,35,76,151/- Mar) during the period January, 2014 to March, 2014. In the said Appendix 22A (Bank realization certificates) the assessee has enclosed an Annexure wherein the details of the export invoices is enclosed along with the dates of the realization of foreign exchange. However, as the realization details could not be correlated to the FIRC's, the assessee has provided an Annexure mentioning the detailed breakup of the Bank Realization Certificate for the sake of correlation".
The formula for the calculation of the refund and the refund amount calculation as per Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 is as described below:
Page 14 of 21Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 Eligible refund= Export turnover X Eligible Credit Total turn over =3,25,7935,359 X 9,20,88,758 = 7,60,33,776/- (a) 3,94,58,67,712
17. In this regard, Learned Chartered Accountant submits that the Adjudication Authority detected the CENVAT Credit utlilzed towards the domestic liability and reversals of Rs.2,90,39,080/- and thereby considerable amount is denied. The correct method of assessing the refund is to deduct only ineligible credit if any from the gross amount of CENVAT Credit availed during the quarter and should not adopt net CENVAT Credit after utilizing domestic liability and reversal. Learned Chartered Accountant further submits that the issue is no more res integra and covered in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 23114-23130/2017 where it is held that:-
"After considering the submissions of both parties on the subject, we are of the view that the dispute is with reference to whether the maximum refund allowable is to be calculated on the basis of gross or net CENVAT credit which has been taken by the appellant. The related point is also with reference to the definition of "exports turnover services" from 4/2012 which may also have a bearing on the total refund allowable to the appellant. In view of the above, we set aside the findings of the lower authorities on the subject matter of export turnover ratio and remand the issue back to the original authority for redetermination of the same keeping in view the decisions on the subject including the decisions cited above and also re-determine such refund amounts keeping in view the amended definition of "exports turnover services" from 1.4.2012".
18. In this regard, Learned CA submits that due to inconsistency in computation of eligible refund as per Notification No. 27/2012, an amount of Rs.77,66,518/- (in appeal no. ST/21178/2017 for the period from Jan 2014 to March 2014) is denied as per the following chart:-
Particulars Computa As per OIO & Computation Correct
-tion OIA method CENVAT Credit A 15,96,64,922 A 15,96,64,922 availed during the quarter Page 15 of 21 Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 Ineligibles as per B 1,60,92,195 B 1,60,92,195 OIO & OIA (assuming without admitting) Utilised towards C 2,90,39,080 C 2,90,39,080 domestic liability & Reversals Net CENVAT D=A-B-C 11,45,33,647 D=A-B 14,35,72,727 Credit as per Rule 5 Export Turnover E 3,67,82,98,721 E 3,67,82,98,721 Total Turnover F 3,94,58,67,712 F 3,94,58,67,712 Export Turnover G=E/F 93.22% G=E/F 93.22% Ratio Refund as per H=D*G 10,67,67,129 H=D*G 13,38,37,071 Formula Closing Balance as I=A-C 13,06,25,842 I=D-C 11,45,33,647 on the last day of the Quarter Closing Balance as J 50,92,83,540 J 50,92,83,540 on the day of filing refund application Eligible Refund K 10,67,67,129 K 11,45,33,647 (Lower of I,J,K) Refund Allowed in L 7,60,33,776 M=K-L 7,60,33,776 OIO Consequential M=K-L 3,07,33,353 M=K-L 3,84,99,871 Refund to be allowed Refund rejected due to inconsistency in computation of 77,66,518 eligible refund
19. Learned Chartered Accountant submits that the refund of Rs.64,62,374/- was denied on the ground that the appellant failed to produce documents in support of the claim made by them. In this regard, Learned Chartered Accountant submits that if any opportunity is extended, appellant can produce the documents in support of the claim as required. As regarding denial of Rs.13,04,786/-, Learned Chartered Accountant submits that the said claim is denied on the flimsy ground that the invoice is addressed to SEZ and such omissions are only Page 16 of 21 Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 procedural lapses and settled by decisions of this Tribunal where it is held that such procedural lapses cannot be considered as reason of denying the CENVAT Credit to SEZ units.
20. As regarding denial of Rs.2,48,27,198/-, Learned Chartered Accountant relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of CC Vs. Suzuki Motors 2017 (47) STR 85 (Tri - Chan).
21. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for revenue reiterated the finding in the impugned order.
22. Heard both sides and perused the records. Since, all these 9 appeals are regarding denial of cenvat credit on various issues the same are taken up simultaneously and a common order is being issued.
Appeal No. Disputed Amount not Subject matter of
amount appealed appeal (Amount)
ST/20242/2017 Rs.83,29,781/- Rs.45,644/- Rs.82,84,137/-
ST/20243/2017 Rs.60,93,503/- Rs.1,58,767/- Rs.59,34,736/-
ST/20244/2017 Rs.1,50,45,973/- Rs.5,29,004/- Rs.1,45,16,969/-
ST/21076/2017 Rs.1,18,87,028/- NIL Rs.1,18,87,028/-
ST/21177/2017 Rs.2,34,85,919/- NIL Rs.2,34,85,919/-
ST/21178/2017 Rs.2,38,58,713/- NIL Rs.2,38,58,713/-
ST/21179/2017 Rs.1,53,22,120/- NIL Rs.1,53,22,120/-
ST/21180/2017 Rs.1,59,28,739/- NIL Rs.1,59,28,739/-
Total 13,35,86,012/- 7,33,415/-
As seen from the above table the appellant has not disputed an amount of Rs.7,33,415 has been accepted hence the same is upheld. Out of the amount disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Rs.13,35,86,012/- and taking into consideration an amount of Rs.7,33,415/- admitted by the appellant, the amount of Rs.13,28,52,597/- is only the disputed Page 17 of 21 Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 amount for which the appellant is in appeal before us. Out of this amount on account of nexus of input services to output services is Rs.11,53,04,647/-, amount of Rs.97,80,795/- is on account of incorrect computation, an amount of Rs.64,62,374/- is rejected on account of documentation and Rs.13,04,786/- based on invoices to SEZ/STPI.
23. As regarding claim of Rs.2,48,27,198/- relating to general insurance service, though the appellant had relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), said finding was given on the ground that medical insurance of employees is a statutory requirements in the light of Employees State Insurance Act being integral part of the manufacturing activity it was allowed even after the amendment to the statute after 01.04.2011. However, in the present case, the absence of any such statutory provisions mandates medical insurance of employees and also considering the facts that health insurance is specifically excluded from the definition of input services during the relevant period, appellant is not entitled for refund of Rs.2,48,27,198/- as claimed and hence the impugned order to this extent is upheld.
24. As regarding claim of the appellant regarding nexus of input and output service, we find that these issues are considered by this Tribunal and also Adjudication Authority in the appellant's own case for the previous period. However, to ascertain the nexus between the actual service availed by the appellant, the invoices related to the said service are not available on record and this specific question, learned CA submits that considering the bulky nature of the documents produced by the appellant before the Adjudication Authority, such co-relation can be carried out only by Adjudication Authority. We find that if the Adjudication Authority has considered such activities / services are eligible for cenvat credit during the previous period and if the issue attained finality as per the decisions / judgments relied by the appellant, there is no reason or justification to deny the benefit of such cenvat credit to appellant for the impugned period also.
Page 18 of 21Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017
25. As regarding claim of Rs.21,57,573/- related to Life Insurance Service, Rs.1,36,05,568/- is related to services falling in other than negative list i.e., Life Insurance & Rent a cab service and Rs.3,64,605/- is related to rent a cab operator services which is claimed as to the extent of service tax paid on employees recovery, we find that the said claim is not against any input services excluded from the definition of input services but it is made since the appellant discharged appropriate service tax on such amount required from the employees. However, to ascertain the fact, the details of the payment collected from the employees and details of the discharge of appropriate service tax on such recoveries are not available on record. If the appellant had made such claim on the amount collected from the employees towards transportation, as rental cab services or against the life insurance and if appellant had discharged appropriate service tax on such recoveries, appellant is eligible for availing credit to that extent and for limited purpose of verifying the records, the same is remanded.
26. As regarding other services including i.e. refund of Rs.70,88,702/- related to Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service, Rs.37,89,589/- related to Management Consultancy Service, Rs.18,97,671/- related to Commercial Training or Coaching Service, Rs.5,36,566/- related to Maintenance or repair service, Rs.3,88,313/- related to sponsorship service, Rs.2,44,399/- related to service of providing accommodation in hotels, Inns & Guest House etc. Rs.1,88,882/- related to Goods Transport Agency Service and Rs.1,83,973/- related to Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service, Rs.7,49,169/- related to Cleaning and House Keeping services other than cleaning of BMT buses and service rewards, all these issues are being remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the claim of the appellant regarding admission of such claim during the previous period and also the decision of the Tribunal related to said services as stated in the ibid paras and to pass appropriate orders after verification of the documents submitted by the appellant.
Page 19 of 21Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017
27. As regarding claim of Rs.97,80,735/-, alleging incorrect computation, we find that the issue is no more res integra and as per the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case (Rs.77,66,518/- in appeal no. ST/21178/2017 for the period from Jan 2014 to March 2014) and Rs.20,17,277/- (against appeal no. ST/21179/2017 for the period from April 2014 to June 2014). We find that this issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 23114-23130/2017, hence the same needs to be reconsidered. Since, the appeals are being remanded to ascertain the eligible of the cenvat credit on input services, the said issue is also remanded and the Original Authority shall assess the net cenvat credit as per Rule 5 after deducting ineligible cenvat credit if any, from the cenvat credit availed during the quarter without deducting the cenvat credit utilized towards domestic liability reversal as done in the impugned order.
28. As regarding claim of Rs.64,62,374/- rejected due to lack of documentation also stands remanded for verification of the documents placed by the appellant before us. The appellant is directed to produce documents in support of claim to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority for appropriate finding. As regarding denial on the ground that the invoices addressed to SEZ, we find that cenvat credit has been denied on the ground that no documents were produced that these services were wholly consumed in their STPI Unit because similar services were rendered in their SEZ unit at Coimbatore. The same is remanded for verification as the appellant claims that these are exclusively used in their STPI Unit, hence the same is remanded for necessary verification.
29. Accordingly, the impugned order to the extent of rejection of cenvat credit of Rs.2,48,27,198/- related to general insurance service is upheld and an amount of Rs.7,33,415 which is not appealed against also stands upheld. As regarding claim related to remaining issues, matter is remanded for Denovo Adjudication to consider the claim of the appellant after extending reasonable opportunity for producing documents in support of their claim and after extending opportunity for personal Page 20 of 21 Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017, ST/21247/2017 hearing. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to complete the Denovo Adjudication within four (4) months from the date of receipt of the final order.
30. Accordingly, demand confirmed against impugned orders are set aside except for an amount of Rs.2,48,27,198/- related to general insurance service and Rs.7,33,415 in ST/20242-20244/2017, ST/21076/2017, ST/21177-21180/2017 and appeals are partially allowed by way of remand as directed above. Impugned order in Appeal No. ST/21247/2017 is set aside and remanded for Denovo Adjudication as directed above.
Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Order pronounced in open court on 30.01.2026) (P. A. AUGUSTIAN) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (R. BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sasi/hr Page 21 of 21