9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1999 - AT - Service TaxRefusal for Refund of CENVAT Credit input services - export of output services - Event Management Service and Mandap Keeper services and Event Management Services & Sponsorship Services Activities relating to Business - Appellant contends that two separate yardsticks for availing CENVAT credit and for refund of the same cannot be there and rejection of refund was not justified Revenue contends that Appellants failed to specify their role in the sponsorship services thus refund of credit not allowed. Held That - The appellant being a Company which undertakes major sponsorship services the events sponsored and carried out also is of the like nature. During the disputed period the definition of input services was very wide and included almost all activities related to business. Further when there is no dispute that credit is admissible on these services and the same is permitted to be utilized, the eligibility for refund of un-utilized credit cannot be measured with a different yardstick. The appellant being a BPO, exporting services, having large number of employees and a huge customer base in India and abroad the impugned services cannot be said to be not related to the activities relating to business of the appellant. - Impugned services cannot be said to be not related to the activities relating to business; Rejection of order of refund claim is unsustainable - Impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed Decided in favour of the Appellant.
Issues:
Challenge to the denial of refund of Cenvat credit for BPO services provided to overseas clients under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) category. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a BPO service provider, challenged the denial of refund of Cenvat credit for services provided to overseas clients under the BAS category. The primary adjudicating authority denied the claim for Event Management Services, Sponsorship Services, and Works Contract Services. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim for works contract but disallowed the others. The appellant contended that the impugned services were used for sponsoring and conducting events, which were essential for providing output services exported. The Counsel argued that if the services qualified for availing credit, the rejection of refund was unjustified, citing Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST. The appellant emphasized that all input services were used for providing exported output services. 2. The DR supported the impugned order, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly rejected the refund claim. The appellant failed to demonstrate how the absence of the services would affect the efficiency of output services. The DR highlighted the lack of specificity regarding the role of the appellant in sponsorship services, emphasizing the need for a nexus between the sponsored events and the output services to allow credit refund. 3. The Tribunal noted that the disputed period predated the broader definition of input services effective from 1.4.2011, which included "activities relating to business." Judicial precedents indicated that service tax credit was admissible if the expense was related to the business of the assessee. The appellant argued that Event Management Services facilitated recruitment, workshops, and brand promotion, enhancing customer base and business growth. The appellant's substantial increase in domestic and international business supported the claim that the impugned services were essential for business activities. Citing the decision in Coca Cola India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Pune-III, the Tribunal held that all activities related to business fell within the definition of input services. Refund for similar services had been allowed in the appellant's previous case, further supporting the claim. 4. Consequently, the Tribunal found the rejection of refund for Event Management and Sponsorship Services unsustainable and set aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed based on the detailed analysis and supporting legal principles. By: Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
|
