9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants which was upheld by the Commissioner (appeals) vide impugned order. The grounds of rejection of part of the refund were that: the services claimed to have been exported to M/s Agilent Technologies, Singapore does not qualify to be an export in terms of Rule 3(1)(iii), of Export of Service Rules,2005 for the reasons that the service receiver and the appellant are same group companies and the agreement did not provide for services related to Information Technology (ITSS). the appellant has availed CENVAT Credit on Diesel generator on which their supplier paid Service Tax even though it was not payable. there was a mismatch between the refund claims and ST/3 returns. 3. Ms. Krati Singh, Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order erred in holding that the appellant was a commercial establishment of M/s Agilent (Singapore); ITSS services rendered by the appellant do not qualify as export under proviso to Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005, as the order is placed by, M/s Agilent (Singapore); The appellant is not a commercial establishment of M/s Agilent (Singapore); Both Agilent (Singapore) and the appellant are separate independent l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ya Enterprises 2012 (7) TMI 141 - Bombay High Court M/S. Lanxess India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Thane- I 2022 (12) TMI 1187 CESTAT Mumbai The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) -6, Bengaluru., The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) 6, 7, Bengaluru Vs. Rajshree Impex, 2021 (7) TMI 307 - Karnataka High Court. CCE, East Singhbhum Vs Tata Motors Ltd. [2013 (294) E.L.T. 394 (Jhar.)] 7. Learned Counsel submits further that in any way Service Tax paid on generator under "Supply of Tangible Goods Services" could not be denied after 16/05/2008. She also submits that credit cannot be denied because of mismatch of entries in ST3 Returns. She relies on the following: M/s Temenos India Private Limited Vs CST, Chennai 2020 (2) TMI 354 - CESTAT Chennai Broadcom Research Pvt Ltd [2016 (42) STR 79 (TBang)] affirmed at [2016 (43) STR 321 (Kar.)] 8. Shri Nikhil Kumar Singh, assisted by Shri Narinder Singh, learned Authorised Representatives, submits that the issue involved is nonfulfilment of the condition under First proviso to Rule 3(1)(iii), of Export of Service Rules,2005 and the appellant wrongly relies on the case law relating to explanation 3(B) of Section 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from any office commercial establishment or any office located outside India; however, we find that learned Commissioner has not given any finding on this issue. We find that as contended by the appellants, the appellants M/s Agilent Technologies (International) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Agilent Technologies, Singapore though are group companies belonging to M/s Agilent Technologies, U.S.A, they are independent entities incorporated/ registered in the respective countries. Therefore, it cannot be held that the appellants are commercial establishment or any office of M/s Agilent Technologies, Singapore, in India. To this extent, we are in agreement with the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellants and are of considered opinion; the proposition cannot be a reason to consider the service provided by the appellants as not an export to M/s Agilent Technologies, Singapore. 14. However, we find that learned Authorized Representative submits that there was no specific order given by M/s Agilent Technologies, Singapore for provision of ITSS Service by the appellant during the relevant period so as to satisfy the condition under the same proviso to Rule 3(1)(iii) of Export of Service Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rule 3(1)(iii) of Export of Service Rules, 2005. We find that the argument of the appellants that development of Software Services rendered by the appellants is linked to the R & D Agreement is not acceptable. We find that the case laws relied upon by the appellants in this regard is not applicable as the facts of the cases are different. 18. Learned Counsel for the appellants also submits that refund of CENVAT credit cannot be denied without raising the demand of service tax on the appellants; they would submit that in case the ITSS Service rendered by them to M/s Agilent Technologies, Singapore was not to be considered as export of service, Department should have raised a demand for provision of the said services. We find that Tribunal held in a number of cases that refund of CENVAT credit on export of services cannot be denied holding that the said provision does not merit to be termed an export of service unless a commensurate demand has been raised on the provider of such services. We find that this Bench in the case of Black Rock Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that: 7. Admittedly the refund claimshave been filed by the appellants under Rule 5 ibid r/w Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore since in the instant case the location of service receiver M/s. HLX is located outside India i.e. USA therefore the place of provision of service is outside India and hence the service in issue qualify export of services in terms of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 8. In view of the discussions and findings recorded in the preceding paragraph, we are of the considered view that the orders of lower authorities denying Cenvat credit on impugned services are not sustainable in law and therefore the appeals filed by the appellant deserve to be allowed. The appeals are accordingly allowed subject to calculation of refund of un-utilised Cenvat credit by the adjudication authority on the basis of the documents submitted by the appellants and for this limited purpose these appeals are remanded to the original authority. The said authority is directed to dispose of the refund claim within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, after giving proper opportunity to the appellants. 19. However, we find that the appellants have also taken the plea that prior to 16.05.2008, they have claimed refund of Business Support Services and not in respect of ITSS Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Creative Enterprises has been upheld by the Apex Court [see 2009 (243) E.L.T. A121] by dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue." 21. In view of the above, we find that as there is no dispute regarding the fact of duty being paid on the generator, credit cannot be disallowed at the service receiver"s end. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department submits that all the cases cited by the appellant are in the realm of Central Excise and therefore, not applicable to the issue of service tax. We are not inclined to accept this proposition. The basic principle of CENVAT credit being same under Central Excise & Service Tax regime, any differentiation in this regard would be artificial. 22. Coming to the third issue of rejection of refund for the reason that the ST-3 Returns do not tally with the CENVAT credit Register, we find, as submitted by the appellants, that learned Commissioner has not given any findings on the same. We find that in the case of M/s Temenos India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held as follows: 10. With regard to the issue of non-disclosure of CENVAT Credit in the ST-3 returns, we find that the appellant had contended that the credits were inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at they have rightly availed the cenvat credit. It appears that both the authorities have not examined all the documents which have been filed by the appellant in support of their refund claim. In view of this, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority to examine the refund claim on the basis of other documents filed by the appellant. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the original authority. The original authority will provide adequate opportunity to the appellant to produce all the documents which they may rely in support of their refund. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed by way of remand." Following the above ratio, we set aside the impugned order to this extent also and allow the claim of the assessee on this ground. 23. In view of the above, we find that refund cannot be rejected for the reason that there is a discrepancy between the CENVAT record and ST-3 Returns. However, we are in agreement with the submissions of the learned Authorized Representative, relying on the cases cited above, that the same can be allowed only if records maintained by the appellants demonstrate that the input services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
