Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

b) If they are treated as taxable service, can the credit be allowed if there is no nexus between the input service and the output service.

7. We find that the Adjudicating Authority has examined both the issues and insofar as the first issue is concerned, the Adjudicating Authority has examined various services covered in the agreements between the appellant and their parent company. He observed that unless the export invoice reflects clear description of service, it would not be possible to come to the conclusion as regards nature of the service. Further, he has also examined the claimed services within which the services contained in the agreements would fall i.e., ITSS and BSS. Since there were no details available in the invoices, the proper classification could not be arrived at and held that unless the output service is taxable service classifiable under one of the taxable services, it would be in the category of non-taxable service or exempt service. The generic reference and description given in the export invoice did not help in arriving at the proper classification. So, essentially, the Adjudicating Authority found that as there are no details available to decide as to what would be the proper classification nor the appellants were able to justify the services in respect of which the credit has been taken or the exports made were covered under specific services, he treated the entire services exported as that of non-taxable services. He has also relied on the fact that there is a statutory requirement under Rule 4A that detailed description, classification and the value of taxable service, inter alia, provided or to be provided are required to be shown in the invoice and in the absence of the same, that would not be proper invoice and therefore, on the strength of the same, no service classification can be determined. We also note that non-adherence to some of the procedural requirements like non-furnishing of exact description of service or non-furnishing of SOFTEX forms, etc., in itself cannot become a ground for denying substantive right.