2015 (6) TMI 467 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - input services - Commission paid to agents - services were utilised for export of goods or not - Held that - though the business activities mentioned in the definition are not exhaustive, the service rendered by the commission agents not being analogous to the activities mentioned in the definition, would not fall within the ambit of the expression activities relating to business - Assessee in this case is also not eligible for refund of the amount of service tax paid on the services of commission agent. - Decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - II v. CEDILE Healthcare Ltd. - 2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT followed - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against order-in-appeal for refund of service tax on commission to agents utilized for export of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund of service tax on commission to agents for export of goods
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal that set aside the original order rejecting the refund claim of service tax paid on commission to agents used for exporting goods. The appellant, a 100% EOU, sought a refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority denied the refund, stating the services were not used in manufacturing the exported products. The first appellate authority, however, accepted the appellant's arguments and allowed the appeal, leading to the revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Interpretation of input service definition
The Tribunal referred to a Gujarat High Court case to analyze the definition of 'input service' in the context of sales promotion and business activities. The court clarified that services used directly or indirectly in manufacturing final products or their clearance qualify as input services. It emphasized that commission paid to agents for sales does not fall under this definition unless it is related to sales promotion activities. The court also discussed the inclusivity of 'activities relating to business,' stating they must be analogous to listed activities like accounting or auditing. Since the services of commission agents did not align with these illustrative activities, they were deemed ineligible for CENVAT credit.

Conclusion:
Considering the judicial precedent and the interpretation of input services, the Tribunal found the appellant ineligible for a refund of service tax paid on commission to agents. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of aligning services with the defined criteria for claiming refunds or credits.