9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who is located outside India and consideration is received in foreign exchange. The appellant had filed various refund claims of unutilized Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the export effected during the period from October, 2005 to March, 2006, from April 2006 to September, 2006 and from October, 2006 to March 2007 respectively. The adjudicating authority partly sanctioned refund claim and partly rejected. The appellant aggrieved by the rejection portion of the refund claim filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who also allowed the Cenvat Credit and refund partly and rejected part of the refund. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) precisely rejected the refund claim on the following grounds: (a) Cenvat Credit availed prior to application of service tax registration i.e. 25/8/2008 is not admissible for refund. (b) Cenvat Credit on input services used in provision of exempted call centers service i.e. prior to 1 st March, 2006 is not admissible for refund. (c) Refund claim greater than the amount of service tax on the invoices is not refundable. (d) Cenvat credit ineligible on bank statement under the category of banking and other financial servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at credit and refund denied on banking and other financial services on the ground that the bank statement is not proper document, she submits that in case of banking and financial services there is relaxation provided under proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule (4A) of Service Tax Rules. According to which any document by whatever name called where not serially numbered and whether or not containing the address of the person receiving taxable service but containing other information in such documents as required under this sub rule shall be sufficient documents to be treated as service tax paying documents therefore refund on this count ought not to have rejected by the lower authority. 3.3 As regard denial of Cenvat credit and consequent refund in respect of certain services on the ground that these services do not have nexus with output services, she submits that the appellant have provided call center services for which all the services on which refund was denied are essential services. The use of each and every services has been explained in appeal memo. It is undisputed that the entire output service of the appellant is exported and no portion of the appellant is sold in India. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed registration on 5.10.2006. Some communication took place thereafter between the respondent and the department which has been shown by the respondent and the registration was finally granted on 26.12.2008. We find nothing substantial in the series of communications to indicate that some important elements to be considered for registration are missing in the application, such as the premises which is sought to be registered. The judgments cited by Commissioner (Appeals) are relied upon. Further, judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.S.T. Bangalore 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.) which held that there is no restriction in availing cenvat credit before registration is granted. The Hon'ble High Court held that "insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, learned counsel appearing for both parties were unable to point out any provisions in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case export is not under dispute and service tax suffered on the input services is also not under dispute. Therefore even though output service is exempted the duty suffered on the input services has to be refunded to the exporter. This issue came up before this Tribunal and High Court earlier, wherein it was held as under: Dell International Services India P. Ltd. 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 c) And IT support services of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to the service tax paid on the input services. Going by the definition of the "input service" under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the service utilized by the appellants for providing output service can indeed be considered as input services. We also take note that the definition of "input service" indicates that the interpretation should be done in a liberal way in view of the phrase "activities relation to business", there cannot be any dispute that the input services rendered by the appellants are all activities relating to the output services exported by the appellant. Moreover, on going through the records, we are satisfied that the appellants had fulfilled the five conditions of Notification No.12/2005 already enumerated in the submission of the appellants. In these circumstances, the impugned orders do not have any merit. The appellants are entitled for the rebate in respect of all the rebate claims filed by them during the relevant period. In view of the above findings we allow the appeals with consequential relief. Zenta Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai 4. Considering the submissions made by both the sides, we find that as per Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority denied the Cenvat credit in respect of following services. (i) Event Management Services, (ii) Mandap Keepers Services, (iii) Management Consultant Services, (iv) Club and Association Services, (v) Convention Services, (vi) Cable Services, (vii) Facilities and Management Services, (viii) Real Estate Agent Services, (ix) Dry Cleaning Services, (x) Business Auxiliary Services, (xi) Manpower Recruitment Services, (xii) Management or Repair Services. On the ground that these services have no nexus with the output service. In our view, firstly the appellant is engaged in export of 100% services and no part of the services is provided in India with this reason alone all the services which have been received and used by the appellant are deemed to have been used for providing output services which have been exported. Since there is no provision for domestic services, the ratio of services that how much related to export and how much related to domestic does not arise. Moreover, all these services as per its' use explained in the appeal memo, we find that all the services are essential for providing the call center services. 6.5 As regard dry clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
