2017 (3) TMI 380 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - Refund claim - Real Estate Agent s Services - denial on the ground that though the appellant had availed facility management services, in the invoices the service tax is collected under category of Real Estate Agent Services - Held that - The category of registration of service provider cannot be a ground for denying refund as the category registration of the service tax provider is beyond the control of the appellant - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection for EOU providing IT Software and Business Auxiliary Services.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to ?5,29,367 by a 100% EOU offering Information Technology Software Services and Business Auxiliary Services for the period April 2010 to June 2010. The appellant had initially filed a refund claim for ?23,53,030, which was reduced after adjudication and first appeal. The rejection of the refund led to this appeal.

The appellant's consultant presented the services and amounts rejected, including Air Travel Agent's Service, Outdoor Catering Services, and Real Estate Agent's Services, totaling ?5,29,367. The consultant argued that the services were eligible based on Tribunal decisions and highlighted discrepancies in the treatment of Real Estate Agent's Services. The appellant had availed facility management services, but the service tax was collected under the category of Real Estate Agent Services. The consultant clarified that the services received were actually facility management services, as detailed in the agreement and invoices. Despite the service provider's registration under Real Estate Agency services, the lower authorities denied the credit.

In response, the Deputy Commissioner reiterated the findings of the impugned order. After considering the submissions and records, the Member (Judicial) noted that the period in question predated a change in the definition of input services, which previously included "activities relating to business." The main dispute concerned the service tax paid for Facility Management Services. Despite the service provider being registered under Real Estate Agency services, the agreement and annexure supported the appellant's claim of receiving facility management services. The Member concluded that the rejection of the refund was unjustified, as the service provider's category of registration should not affect the refund eligibility. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund of ?5,29,367 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs.

In summary, the judgment addressed the eligibility of a refund claim for an EOU providing IT Software and Business Auxiliary Services, focusing on the treatment of Real Estate Agent's Services and Facility Management Services. The Member (Judicial) emphasized the importance of the actual services received over the service provider's registration category in determining refund eligibility, ultimately allowing the appeal and granting relief to the appellant.