9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese services have been held to be input services - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/2405/2010-SM - 20774/2017 - Dated:- 25-5-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Harish Bindu Madhavan, Advocate, For the Appellant Ms. Ezhilmathi. Jt. Commissioner(AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt.09/08/2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby Commissioner(Appeals) has partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and partly disallowed refund of accumulated input service credit in respect of Event Management Service, Real Estate Agent service, Tour Operators service and travel agent service on the ground that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/05/2014, after considering submissions made, remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of verification of documents. sanction of refund and payment of the amount to the appellant by holding that the above referred services qualify as input services for providing output services exported and hence eligible for refund of unutilised CENVAT credit. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue challenged the order before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case back to the Tribunal to re-examine and find out whether there is any nexus between the impugned services and services exported. 3 Heard both parties and perused records. 4.1. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d's clarification also makes this point very clear. The decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Capiq Engineering Pvt. Ltd and Amdocs Business Services Pvt Ltd. also support this view. 4.2 He further submitted that there cannot be two yardsticks with respect to eligibility of CENVAT credit under Rule 2(l) and thereafter in respect of refund under rule 5. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of CST Delhi Vs. Convergys India Pvt. Ltd [2009(16) STR 198 (Tri. Del.) and as affirmed by the Punjab Haryana High court in 2010 (20) STR 166 (P H). He further submitted that the Revenue cannot decide the services which are essential or not essential for the functioning o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt Ltd [2008-TIOL-629-CESTAT-BANGALORE] c. CCE ST LTU, Bangalore Vs. Micro Labs Ltd [2011 (24) STR 272 (Kar.)] d CCE Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010(20) STR 577 (Bom.)] 5.1. Now coming to the nexus between the disputed four input services and the output services exported, the learned counsel submitted that the input services have been used for provision of export of services and hence the appellant is rightly eligible for the refund With regard to event management services, the learned counsel submitted that the event management services are incurred (a) to convey key business decisions to employees relating to business, (b) to give a chance to interact with senior leadership of the organi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authorized operations of the company and therefore they are eligible for availment of refund on the same. For this submissions, he relied upon the following decisions.- a. CST, Delhi Vs. Convergys India (P) Ltd. [2009(16) STR 198 (Tri. Del.)] affirmed by the Punjab Haryana High Court in 2010(20) STR 166 (P H). b. Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE ST LTU, Mumbai [2016-TIOL-2392-CESTAT-MUM] c. CST, Mumbai-II Vs. WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] d. Prudential Process Management Services Vs. CST, Mumbai-II [2016-TIOL-287-CESTAT-MUM] 5.3. Further he submitted that as far as tour operator's services and travel agent services, they are used for the purpose of business travels of officials of the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpreted to include any service which is essential for providing the output service. Further I also find that appellant has been able to establish the nexus between the disputed four input services and the output services exported and all these services have been held to be input services by various decisions cited supra. Therefore by following the said decisions which are squarely applicable in the case of the appellant, I am of the view that the impugned order denying the refund on the ground that they do not fall under the definition of input services is wrong and therefore I set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential reliefs, if any. (Pronounced on 25/05/2017) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
