2013 (4) TMI 611 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of the refund claim - appellant is a 100% HTP unit receiving various services for providing such services and has claimed the refund on the Service Tax paid by the service provider - The department is of the view that services are not used in providing the output service accordingly rejected the refund claim - Held that - I find that by producing the C.A certificate, the appellant has complied with the requirement of CBEC Circular dt.19.01.2010. Since the appellant has complied with the requirement of the documents to be filed along with refund claim, I find that the first appellate authority was in error in rejecting the refund claim filed by the appellant. Thus findings of both the lower authorities are unsustainable.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claim for Service Tax paid on various services used by the appellant in providing information technology software services.

Analysis:
The judgment involves four appeals against the rejection of refund claims filed by the appellant, who is a provider of information technology software services situated in a software Technology Park in Gandhinagar. The appellant, a 100% HTP unit, claimed a refund on Service Tax paid for services like Rent services, Security services, Repair & maintenance of Air-conditioner services, Man Power services, and Bandwidth services. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim, stating that the services were not used in providing the output service, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice. The main contention revolved around the utilization of these services in the provision of output services by the appellant.

The appellant's counsel argued that the services were indeed used for providing output services and highlighted the compliance with the CBEC Circular of filing Chartered Accountant's certificates to justify the refund claims. The counsel also referred to previous instances where similar services were accepted for refund claims. The appellate authority reiterated the findings of the first appellate authority, leading to a detailed examination of the records and submissions.

Upon careful consideration, the judge found that the services claimed for refund were indeed used in or in relation to the provision of output services by the appellant, citing a previous Final Order supporting this view. The judge noted that the Chartered Accountant's certificates provided by the appellant met the requirements of the CBEC Circular, indicating compliance with necessary documentation for refund claims. As the appellant fulfilled all requirements and was engaged in the export of software technology, the judge deemed the refund claims to be valid, rendering the findings of the lower authorities unsustainable.

Consequently, the judge set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential relief, if any. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with documentation requirements and the eligibility of services used in the provision of output services for claiming Service Tax refunds.