Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned Commissioner (A) are not sustainable in law as the same have been passed contrary to the settled legal position as well as contrary to the statutory provision and the decisions rendered by the higher judicial fora. He further submitted that under Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rule, 1994, an option is provided to the assessee to take registration at only one premises even if the taxable service are provided from more than one premises provided the centralized billing or accounting system is followed. He further submitted that the appellant provides taxable services from two locations and as centralized accounting and billing system unit at Bangalore and as such have obtained centralized registration under the service tax laws only at Bangalore unit. He also submitted that even though the taxable services are provided from both the locations, the export invoices are raised only at Bangalore unit as it has the centralized accounting and billing system and raising of export invoices only from Bangalore unit does not infer that no services have been exported from Gurgaon unit. He further submitted that the Bangalore unit of the appellant is registered as a Software Technology Park (STP) unit engaged in providing IT/ITS services and accordingly monthly SOFTEX returns are being filed by the appellant. The turnover relating to ITSS alone is disclosed in the monthly SOFTEX as only technology software service is provided from the Bangalore unit and Business Auxiliary Service is disclosed in the monthly SOFTEX filed with the STPI. He further submitted that the refund has been denied in respect of certain input services on the ground that the same does not fall in the definition of input service. He also submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has narrowly interpreted the definition of input service whereas the definition of input service has a very wide import and the inclusive part of the definition reads and includes services used in relation to modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of the provider of the output service or an office related to such factory or premises. It means, the maintenance and repair service have specifically been included in the input service definition and similarly with respect to other input services for which the refund has been rejected have been held to be input services by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court as the said services are related to the business of the company and are directly utilized by the company for efficiently providing the taxable output services. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST: 2015 (39) STR 241 (Tri.-Bang.)
(ii) Megma Design Automation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST: 2015-TIOL-1845-CESTAT-BANG.
(iii) CST vs. Jubilant Biosys Ltd.: 2016 (42) STR 729 (Tri.-Bang.)
(iv) Xilink India Technology Services vs. CCE: 2016 (43) STR 438 (Tri.-Hyd.)

5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of various impugned orders and submitted that the appellant have not submitted sufficient document to prove that the export of service has taken place for Gurgaon unit as claimed by the appellant. He further submitted that the turnover relating to BAS is not disclosed in the monthly SOFTEX filed with the STPI. He further submitted that in the absence of conclusive proof to the effect that the appellant had exported taxable service from Gurgaon; the learned Commissioner (A) has upheld the findings of the lower authority.

6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and various decisions cited by the learned consultant for the appellant, I am of the view that the findings in the impugned orders that the appellants have failed to disclose the export turnover relating to BAS in the monthly SOFTEX filed with the STPI, is not sustainable in law, further, I find that the appellant has been raising the export invoices only at Bangalore unit as it has a centralized accounting and billing system in force and the same is permissible under Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Further, I also find that in the SOFTEX return, only export of software services is disclosed, as the Bangalore unit is registered as a software technology park of India. The BAS provided from Gurgaon unit is not disclosed in the monthly SOFTEX filed with the STPI as the Gurgaon unit is not registered with Software Technology Park. Therefore, only on this ground the refund is wrongly rejected. Further, as far as lack of nexus with regard to the input service viz., parking and cafeteria rent; building maintenance and housekeeping; book keeping; financial services; internet and telephone services, all these services are necessary for running of the business and are held to be input services in the decisions cited supra. Therefore, I hold that these input services fall in the definition of input service and the appellants are entitled to refund of the same.