9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... four claims pertaining to the periods October 2006 to December 2006, January 2007 to March 2007; April 2007 to June 2007 and July 2007 to September 2007 which had been filed on different dates between 26th December 2007 and 25th February 2008. 2. The appellant is a unit operating under Software Technology Parks (STP) scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy of the Government of India and is, primarily, an exporter of information technology and information technology enabled services (IT/ITeS) from their registered unit. I addition to exports, a minor portion of their business relates to supply of services to their group entities within India. In the process of executing their contracts with clients in India and abroad, the appellant utilizes input services on which CENVAT credit is availed by them. 3. Though they utilise a portion of the available CENVAT credit for discharge of tax liability on services rendered domestically, a substantial amount remains unutilized; they sought refund of the balance credit as per entitlement under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant is registered as a supplier of 'banking and other financial services', 'business auxil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -over. The first appellate authority has held that none of the supporting documents furnished in support of their claim indicates the extent of unutilized credit attributable to exports but has merely claimed the full extent of unutilized credit in relation to the export turn-over. According to the impugned order, this limit is the ceiling and refund is liable to be sanctioned to the actual extent of unutilized credit in relation to the exports subject to the ceiling. In view of the inability of the appellant to produce details of unutilized cenvat credit in relation to export of services the refund claim is inadmissible. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited the decision of this Tribunal in their own case i.e., Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai II vs. J P Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (38) STR 410 (Tri. Mumbai) wherein almost identical circumstances, Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed two rejected refund claims against which revenue came up in appeal before the Tribunal. While dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal has pointed out: 6.1. The actual dispute centres around two issues. The first issue is whether the 21 input services is in respect of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we also find that input services used in relation to business are covered in the definition. Even, all input services used for modernization, renovation or repair to the office premises are also covered. We do not agree with the Ld. A.R. that advertising which is an input service for the Manpower Recruitment Service will not be eligible. We hold that, any service which is an input for another input service will get covered under the definition of input service on which credit is sought. However, we do not agree that part of the service tax credit, on the service of supply of food whose expenditure is gone by the employees, will not be an admissible input service for availment of credit. The permissibility of input service credit as discussed above has been upheld by a string of judgments of this Tribunal such as the case of Commissioner of C. Ex, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom), Commissioner of C. Ex, Service Tax, LTU vs. Lupin Ltd. 2012 (28) STR 291 (Tri. Mumbai) and Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Convergys India Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (16) STR 198 (Tri.Del). In the end we have no doubt that the services utilized are input services and refund of credit on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d vs. Commissioner of Central Excise in appeal No. ST/707 708/2010. learned counsel for the appellant also draws our attention to the decision of this Tribunal in KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - I [2013 (32) STR 356 (Tri. - Mumbai) which has held: 5.4 Accordingly, Notification NO. 5/2006-CE (N.T.) dated 14/03/2006 has been issued. Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 deals with obligation of the manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods and provider of taxable and exempted services. Under Rule 6(3)(c), the provider of output service shall utilize credit only to the extent of an amount not exceeding 20% of the amount of service tax payable on taxable output service. In the present case, the services provided by the appellant and exported is not a taxable output service inasmuch as software development software service and software consultancy service become taxable only in the Budget 2008. Therefore, the cap of 20% prescribed under Rule 6(3)(c) have no application whatsoever. Therefore, there was no bar on the appellant in availing full credit in respect of IT software services during the material period. 5.5 The appellant has re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
