2019 (1) TMI 1967 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid on the input services - POPOS Rules - claim of refund on the ground that the output services were exported and that the appellant was not in a position to utilise the Cenvat credit of service tax availed on the input services - rejection of refund applications on the ground that the place of provision of service is India and as such such services cannot be treated as export of service in terms of Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules 2012 read with Rule 6A(1) of the Service Tax Rules 1994. HELD THAT - The period in dispute in the present case is from October 2015 to March 2016. It is found from the available records that for the earlier period i.e. October 2013 to September 2015 based on the same service contract entered into between the appellant and the overseas service recipient M/s Disphar International BV Netherlands this Tribunal M/S INDEUS LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX BELAPUR 2018 (10) TMI 1254 - CESTAT MUMBAI has allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant holding that the services rendered by the appellant are in the nature of export of service and thus eligible to cash refund of accumulated Cenvat credit. Since on the same issue for earlier period the Tribunal has allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant there are no justification to accept the findings recorded in the impugned order in support of rejection of the appeals filed by the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund of service tax paid on input services claimed by the appellant for providing research services in pharmaceutical development.
- Determination of whether the services rendered by the appellant qualify as export of service for the purpose of refund.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in providing research services in pharmaceutical development, filed refund applications for service tax paid on input services during a disputed period. The appellant argued that the output services were exported, making them eligible for a refund. However, the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund applications, stating that the place of provision of service was in India, thus not qualifying as an export of service. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal, citing previous orders in their favor for a similar issue.

The Tribunal examined the records and noted that for an earlier period, a similar service contract with an overseas recipient had been deemed as export of service by the Tribunal, allowing a refund of accumulated Cenvat credit. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal found no justification to uphold the rejection of the refund applications in the present case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that the services provided by the appellant did qualify as export of service, entitling them to the refund of service tax paid on input services during the disputed period.