2008 (8) TMI 227 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim for refund of Service Tax paid on Input services used for the exports refund denied on ground that appellants exported a service, which is clearly exempted - appellant claimed that the services are Business Auxiliary Services, according to the Department, the services are Information Technology Service tribunal ruing rendered in case of. Deloitte Tax Service India Pvt. Ltd., holding that Back Office service was not Information Technology service and they are rightly covered under Business Auxiliary Service, is relevant - held that refund claims, which are filed after the amendment and satisfy every requirement of Rule 5 cannot be rejected merely because they relate to exports made prior to the date of amendment

Summary

Issues: Refund claim of Service Tax paid on exported services

Analysis:

Issue 1: Nature of services exported and eligibility for refund
The appellant filed refund claims for Service Tax paid on exported services totaling Rs. 2,20,59,825/-. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim on the grounds that the services were considered exempt by the Department as Information Technology Services, not Business Auxiliary Services. The Department argued that since the services were not taxable, no Input Credit could be taken, and thus, no refund was due.

Issue 2: Relationship of Input Services to exported services
The Assistant Commissioner also contended that the Input Services were not directly related to the export of output services. The appellant challenged this assertion and cited Notification 5/06(N.T.) dated 14-3-2006, which they believed entitled them to the refund. The lower authority disagreed, stating that prior to the notification, only manufacturers were eligible for unutilized credit, not service providers.

Issue 3: Submission of relevant documents
A further point of contention was the lack of submission of relevant documents to support the refund claims. The lower authority found that the details of invoices and documents were not provided to substantiate the claim, leading to its rejection.

Commissioner (Appeals) Analysis
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original, emphasizing the non-filing of input invoices as a ground for rejection. Despite not delving into the specifics of this issue, the Commissioner noted the absence of supporting documents for the claim.

Tribunal Decision
During the Tribunal hearing, the appellant referenced a previous ruling that distinguished Back Office services from Information Technology services, supporting their claim for Business Auxiliary Services. They also cited a Mumbai Bench decision regarding post-amendment refund claims. The Tribunal, considering these arguments and the inadequate scrutiny of documents by the Original Authority, decided to remand the matter for a fresh decision. The Tribunal ordered the Original Authority to reevaluate the claim in light of the cited cases and verify all documents within four months, ultimately allowing the appeal by way of remand.