2016 (6) TMI 681 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Period of limitation - Export of Information Technology Software Services - Service tax paid on various input services viz. Renting of Immovable Property Services, Management Business Consultant Services, Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency s Services, Rent-a-cab Services, Works contract / Management, Maintenance and Repair Services, Cleaning Services, Club or Association Services, Banking and Other Financial Services, Outdoor Catering Services, Advertisement Services, General Insurance Services and Supply of Tangible Goods Services.- Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14/03/2006 - Held that - in the appellant s own case for different period, this Tribunal vide has allowed refund in respect of the above services. Further the issue is settled in the cases of Coca Cola India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune 2009 (8) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and CCE Vs. HCL Technologies 2014 (11) TMI 663 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . Therefore, by following the ratio laid in the above judgments, I hold that appellant is eligible for refund of the above services. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax paid on various input services; rejection of refund claim; time bar for claim; nexus between input service and output service exported; definition of input services pre-01/04/2011; activities related to business; eligibility for refund of specific services.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services under 'Information Technology Software Services' exported as an EOU registered under STPI scheme, filed a refund claim for service tax paid on various input services for the period April 2009 to June 2009. The original authority rejected the claim as time-barred, but the Commissioner(Appeals) directed a re-examination. The original authority then sanctioned a partial refund but disallowed a portion citing lack of nexus between input and exported output services. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this rejection, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted the pre-01/04/2011 definition of input services, which included 'activities relating to business.' The services for which refund was disallowed included Renting of Immovable Property, Management Business Consultant, Manpower Recruitment, Rent-a-cab, Works contract, Cleaning, Club or Association, Banking, Outdoor Catering, Advertisement, General Insurance, and Supply of Tangible Goods Services. The appellant's counsel explained the purposes of availing each service, some expressly falling under the input service definition, while others related to 'activities related to business.'

Referring to previous Tribunal orders and judgments like Coca Cola India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune and CCE Vs. HCL Technologies, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund for the mentioned services. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs.

This judgment clarifies the eligibility criteria for refund of service tax on input services used for exported services, emphasizing the interpretation of 'activities related to business' within the pre-2011 definition of input services. It also highlights the importance of establishing a nexus between input and output services to claim such refunds, as demonstrated through the appellant's successful appeal based on previous legal precedents and specific service categories.