9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 764 - AT - Service Tax100% EOU - Refund claim - Advertising Agency Service - Business Auxiliary Services - Commercial Training and Coaching Service - and Chartered Accountancy Services - rejection on account of nexus - Held that - the services are used in providing services which were exported by the appellant - similar issue came before the Tribunal in the case of WNS Global Services 2016 (10) TMI 135 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that assessee are eligible for availment of CENVAT credit and the refund was sanctioned - refund allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection of service tax on input services - Applicability of services for exported output services. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for service tax paid on input services like Advertising Agency Service, Business Auxiliary Services, Commercial Training and Coaching Service, and Chartered Accountancy Services during a specific period. The appellant, an export-oriented unit, argued that these services were utilized for providing output services that were exported. The appellant also referred to a similar case where a refund was granted for the same services. The Departmental Representative contended that while the services were eligible for CENVAT credit, the nature of services needed to be examined to claim a refund under Rule 5. The representative provided an example where services like event management and translation, though taxed under business support services, were not connected to exported services. The Tribunal observed that the appellant was a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) and used the mentioned services for providing exported services. Citing precedent cases like WNS Global Services and Xilinx India Technology Services, where similar issues were addressed, the Tribunal found that the services in question were indeed used for exported output services. Relying on the decision in WNS Global Services, the Tribunal held that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the eligibility of the services for CENVAT credit and the necessity of the services for providing exported output services. The decision was based on precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately setting aside the order rejecting the refund claim.
|
