2017 (1) TMI 1391 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - export of services - various input services - denial on account of nexus - Held that - The department has not established by any evidence that the said services are used primarily for personal use and consumption of the employee of the company - the services have been subject matter of analysis in various judgments of the High Courts as well as Tribunal and it has been held that the said services qualify as input services - refund allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim.

Analysis:
The appellant, through their consultant, presented a detailed breakdown of various services received along with the corresponding amounts. These services included Air Travel Agent's Service, Business Support Service, Chartered Accountant's Service, Commercial Training or Coaching Service, Company Secretary Service, Consulting Engineer Services, Courier Services, General Insurance Service, Information Technology Software Services, Legal Consultancy Services, Management or Business Consultancy Services, Management, Maintenance or Repairs Service, Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service, Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval Services, and Telecommunication Services. The consultant argued that these services were essential for the appellant's business of providing output services, which are exported outside India. He contended that the authorities below erred in rejecting the refund claim based on the lack of nexus between input and output services, citing relevant judgments and emphasizing that most services fell within the definition of input services.

The Assistant Commissioner, representing the respondent, reiterated the findings of the impugned order during the proceedings.

After considering the submissions from both parties, the Member (Judicial) analyzed the nature of the services listed by the appellant. Referring to precedents from High Courts and Tribunals, it was established that these services qualified as input services. The Member noted that the department failed to provide evidence that the services were primarily used for personal consumption by the company's employees. Consequently, the rejection of the refund claim was deemed unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs that may apply. The order was pronounced and dictated in open court, bringing the matter to a close.