2017 (3) TMI 515 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - export of Software services - various input services - Held that - this Tribunal in the appellant s own case for different period has discussed in detail and analyzed the eligibility of refund in regard to all the services. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal holding that the appellant is eligible for refund. In regard to Security Agency Services it is seen that the services involve escort guard also, such escort guard is for providing escort to women employees who are working the odd hours of the night. In view thereof, the appellant is eligible for refund of security agency services. The banking and Financial services was received by the appellant for the purpose of taking advice on redemption of employees stock option, these services are directly connected with, the business activities of the appellant therein, and therefore eligible for credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection of service tax paid on Input services.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim of service tax paid on Input services by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant, an STPI Unit engaged in the export of Software services, sought a refund for various services provided from October 2011 to December 2011. The rejected amounts for different service categories were presented in a tabulated form. The appellant argued that services like Banking and other Financial Services were essential for the company's benefit, and thus, eligible for a refund. The Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon hearing the submissions, the Tribunal referred to a previous case involving the same appellant for a different period where a similar refund claim was analyzed. The Tribunal had allowed the refund for most services except banking and financial services. It was noted that Security Agency Services included escort guard services for women employees working odd hours, making the appellant eligible for a refund in this category. Regarding banking and financial services, it was established that these services directly related to the business activities of the appellant, specifically for advice on redemption of employees' stock options. Following the precedent set in the previous case, the Tribunal held the appellant eligible for a refund, overturning the impugned order. The appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.