9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claims under Notification No. 12/2005-ST issued under Export of Service Rules, 2005 for the refund of the service tax paid on the input services for the period from 3/2005 to 9/2005 and 10/2005 to 2/2006, but this rebate claim was rejected on the following three grounds-(1) non-filing of necessary declaration, (2) to be filed before Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities (3) appellant had not paid any service tax on the services exported by them. Held that- once the taxable services is exported and various input services have been utilized for providing the output service the appellant could be entitled for the rebate which is equal to the service tax paid on the input services. Also held that the appellant fulfill the five condition of the said notification no. 12/2005, thus the appellants are entitled for the rebate in respect of all the rebate claims. The appeal is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 83 & 83A/2006, dated 31-1-2008 4. In this case the appellant filed two rebate claims for the period from 3/2005 to 9/2005 and 10/2005 to 2/2006. The Original Authority vide his Orders-in-Original dated 23-6-2006 and 5-7-2006 had rejected both the claims on the ground of (i) non-filing the necessary declaration before export of services - the declaration was filed only on 29-6-2005 (ii) the claim was required to be filed before the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities (iii) that the appellants had not paid any service tax on the services exported by them. The appeals filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) Bangalore were disposed of vide Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 21 & 22/2007-ST, dated 26-2-2007 directing the appellant to make the claim before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The said order was challenged before the CESTAT. The CESTAT remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits, holding that such rebate claims are to be dealt with by the Service Tax Commissionerate. The jurisdiction was clarified by the Board vide F. No. 127/87/2007-CX. 4(pt) dated 24-10-2007 and published in Public Notice No. 74/2007, dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss retrieval service * Outdoor caterer service * Rent-a-cab service * Security agency service * Technical inspection and certification service * Tour operator service 5.1 The above input services were used for providing output service of "Business Auxiliary Service". Being a 100 per cent EOU, services exporter, the appellant could not utilize the same credit as there is no payment of service tax or Central Excise duty. They filed a declaration dated 29-6-2005 received by the Department on the same date and a declaration dated 19-4-2006 received by the Department on 5-5-2006 as required under Notification No. 12/2005-ST giving the requisite details much before the issue of show-cause notice for the above referred claims. The appellants thereafter filed rebate claims under Notification No. 12/2005-ST issued under Export of Service Rules, 2005 for the refund of the service tax paid on the input services. 6. The primary objection of the revenue is that the appellants are not exporting taxable services and that the input services are not used for providing exported service. The issue stands settled in the appellants' own case in respect of the claims filed for the months of March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at rule 3 of Export of Services Rules, 2005 provides that the rules will apply to taxable services. In other words, there is no restriction placed on exempted services not being eligible for benefit under Export of Services Rules, 2005. So long as a service is defined under section 65(105) of the Finance Act, it will be a taxable service and will qualify for availing benefit under Export of Services Rules, 2005. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Bench in the case of ANZ International v. CCE 2008 (224) ELT 573 affirmed by the High Court in Commissioner of Customs v. ANZ International 2009 (233) ELT 40 (Kar.). 8. Our attention was also invited to the definition of "input service" under rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The definition of "input service" is of a very wide interpretation for the following reasons :— * It uses the phrase 'whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to', 'for providing' * It gives an inclusive definition which further widens the scope of the main definition; and * It uses the phrase 'activities relating to business' as an input service. 8.1 The term "activities relating to business" has not been defined in the Cenvat Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d stated that the appellants had not followed the procedure prescribed therein and therefore, they are not entitled for the rebate. She stated that the compliance of the said procedure is a must for granting rebate. She prayed for rejection of the appeals. 11. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. In respect of Appeal No. ST/115/2008, the rebate has been rejected on the ground that the service exported is not taxable. However, in the other appeal it has been held that they are taxable. Only with regard to some of the input services, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order had expressed certain doubts as to their entitlement for credit and remanded the matter to the Original Authority. Both the orders are under challenge. In terms of the agreement entered by the appellant, the following services are provided to the recipients situated abroad :— (a) Call centre services including technical support, customer care contact services and sales facilitation services. (b) Back office accounting and transaction processing; and (c) IT support services of remote maintenance, trouble shooting, catering to Dell's group companies outside India and their overseas customers. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
