9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ology Services and Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES). Undisputedly, the said services qualify as export of service. Appellant is also registered under the Service Tax for taxable Information Technology Software Services and Business Auxiliary Services as service provider and also registered as service recipient for taxable Manpower Recruitment Service, Sponsorship Service, Commercial Training and Coaching Service, Legal Consultancy, etc. Appellant procured various input services which were utilised in provision of output service and tax paid thereon was claimed as CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 2(l) read with Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Since the services provided by the appellant qualify as an export of service, appellant filed periodical refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules read with Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) and Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012 as applicable for seeking refund of accumulated CENVAT credit. 2.1 In the first round of litigation, the learned original authority partially sanctioned and rejected some amount of refund claims filed by the appellant. Being aggrieved by the rejection, appellant preferred ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve held that the definition of input service is of wide purport and includes services which are in connection with or have a nexus with the output services provided. Learned counsel has annexed a detailed statement substantiating the nexus of input services used in providing the output service along with the judicial precedent allowing the credit of said services which is reproduced herein below: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Pre April 2011) Amount (Post April 2011) Nexus Judgments 1 Sponsorship Service 7,77,639 29,10,003 The Appellant has paid services tax on these services as a receiver of services i.e., under reverse charge mechanism. The Appellant being a global entity sponsors various projects, new IT research programs by various institutions etc., thereby increasing the Appellant's presence in the market. Thus, the said services received are very important from the Appellant's business growth perspective. Hence these services qualify as input services of the Appellant having direct nexus with the output services. 1. Arm Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C.E., Cus. & S.T., Bangalore, 2016 (45) STR 133 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... like attending business meetings with client's, meeting with regulatory authorities, prospective customers meetings etc. Hence, the said services are important from the Appellant's business activities perspective since the employees need to reach the workplace and/or client place on given time which helps to provide output service within given time frame. Hence these services are essential for the provision of output service and have direct nexus with output service. Commr. of C. Ex., Bangalore-Ill vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd, 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.) 5 Pandal and Shamiana/ Mandap Keeper Services 6,906 49,258 These services are availed to make necessary arrangements while organizing meeting, rendering training conducting business exhibitions to attract new customers. Hence the said services are direclty related to the business activity of the Appellant and hence qualify as input services. 1. Manhattan Associates (I) Dev. Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs C.S.T., Bangalore, 2017 (5) GSTL 99 (Tri-Bang.) 2. DBOI Global Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. of Service Tax, Mumbai, 2017 (48) S.T.R. 157 (Tri.- Mumbai) 3. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II vs WNS Gl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru East: 2021 (3) TMI 559 - CESTAT Bangalore. 3.2 He also submitted that neither Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 nor the Notification No.5/2006-CE and Notification No.27/2012-CE during the relevant time required the appellant to prove the nexus. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant is entitled to interest on delayed sanction of refund as per Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 which prescribes that if any duty ordered to be refunded under Section 11B is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of that Section, the assessee shall be paid interest at the rate stipulated on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application till the date of refund of such duty. In support of his claim for interest, the appellant relied upon the following decisions. * Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India: 2012 (27) STR 193 (SC) * Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru vs. Netapp India Pvt. Ltd.: 2020 (32) GSTL 176 (Kar.) * Scr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
