9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals), Mumbai- IV, wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original No. ST-II/Div. IV/130-R/2012-13 dated 28/9/2012 and allowed the appeal of the Respondent. Respondent also filed Misc. Application for implementation of the said order. In the same matter the stay application of Revenue was rejected vide this Tribunal order No. S/493/14/SMB/C-III dated 5/5/2014. The fact of the case is that the respondent M/s. MSIM Global Support Technology Services Pvt. Ltd is providing taxable service under the category of Business Support Service and Management, Maintenance Repair Service . They had claimed refund of the unutilized Cenvat Credit of ₹ 36,61,517/- for the period from July 2011 to September 2011 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with notification No. 5/2006- CE(NT) dated 14/3/2006 on the ground that the output services provided during relevant period under the category of Business Support Services had been exported and they were not in position to utilized the Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on the input services used for providing such output services. The respondent was issued show cause notice dated 24/8/2012, rejected refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 1.02 crore the objection was mainly in respect of the FIRCs mentioning that 'the proceeds have been realised in respect of export of goods'. Meanwhile, the said certificates have been corrected by the collecting bank and therefore, this objection would no longer be sustainable. However, the correct certificates were not available before the lower authorities when they rejected the claim and, therefore, the matter is remanded back to the refund sanctioning authority for consideration of the revised FIRCs now obtained by the assessee-appellant from the collecting bank and after considering the same, refund shall be granted to the appellant as per law. 6. As regards the appeals of the Revenue, the only ground urged is on the use of the expression in which has been retrospectively amended by substitution of expression for . The expression for implies 'for the purposes of' as held by the hon'ble apex Court in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce [AIR 1976 SC 348] of output service, refund of input service credit would be available. In any case, the department has not objected to the assessee-respondent taking the credit at the relevant time and the obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountant and (xii) Information Technology Software Services 16. All the above mentioned services shall be covered within the definition of an input service under Rule 2(I)(i) (main definition), if they are used in providing any output service. However, by virtue of the inclusive definition , as referred to supra, these service shall continue to be within the ambit of input service if they are used: In relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repair of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises; In relation to advertisement or sales promotion, market research; In relation to storage up to the place of removal; In relation to procurement of inputs; In relation to activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security, In relation to inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal. 17. It is worthwhile to note that, out of the input serives as mentioned in the foregoing para, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r home consumption or for export on payment of duty; or (ii) service tax on output service, 20. Notification NO. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14/3/2006, as amended, issued under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, vide para No. 4 states that the refund is allowed only in those circumstances where a manufacturer is not in a position to utilize the input credit or input service credit, allowed under rule 3 of the said rules, against goods and taxable services exported during the quarter of month to which the claim relates(hereinafter referred to as the given period ) Further, condition no. 5 of the said notification further lays down that The refund of unutilized input service credit will be restricted to the extent of the ratio of export turnover to the total turnover for the given period to which the claim relates i.e. Maximum refund=Total CENVAT credit taken on input services during the given period X export turnover=Total turnover. 21. Further, it is to be noted that the Board vide their Circular NO. 120/01/2010 dated 19/1/2010 have clarified that the primary objection indicated by the field formations is that the language of Notification No. 5/2006-CX(NT) permits ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vities like event management, such as company-sponsored dinners/picnics/tours, flower arrangements, mandap keepers, hydrant sprinkler systems(that is, services which can be called as recreational or used for beautification of premises) rest house etc., prima facie would not appear to impact the efficiency in providing the output services, unless adequate justification is shown regarding their need. 22. From the correlation of the input services used in the provision of output services as seen from the Appellants submissions before the Respondent, I find that the input services were essential for their business activity in the provision of output services. I, therefore, hold that aforementioned disputed services were used by the Appellants in or in relation to provision of output services. In other words these services could be said to have been used in furthering business prospects of the Appellants, though they may not be having direct nexus with the provision of output services exported. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon Hon ble CESTAT s decision in following cases:- (i) CCE, Tirunelveli V/s. DCW Ltd. 2011-TIOL-606-CESTAT Mad. Wherein it is held that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
