2012 (12) TMI 581 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Rules Leased Telecom Lines Qualify as Eligible Input Services for EOU

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK - 2013 (32) S.T.R. 657 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Appeal against rejection of refund claims for Business Auxiliary Services provided by a 100% EOU, denial of CENVAT credit on distributed service tax by Head Office, rejection of refund claim for directly availed services, dispute over export definition due to routing through Indian telecom authorities.Analysis:The appellant, a 100% EOU providing Business Auxiliary Services, filed refund claims for two units in Nashik. The claims were rejected citing reasons like distributed CENVAT credit by Head Office without registration, denial of credit for directly availed services, and dispute over export definition due to routing through Indian telecom authorities. The appellant argued that pre-2006, no registration was required for Head Office as input service distributor, making denial of credit on this ground unsustainable. Regarding directly received services, the appellant contended that leased telecom lines used for exporting output service are eligible input services. The appellant claimed that exporting data electronically to foreign recipients in exchange for payments qualifies as export. The Revenue authorities reiterated the lower findings.The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and ruled in favor of the appellant on various grounds. Firstly, it held that the leased telecom lines used for electronic exports qualify as eligible input services under CENVAT Credit Rules. Secondly, it noted that denial of CENVAT credit on services distributed by the Head Office due to lack of registration was invalid pre-2006. The Tribunal emphasized that the nexus between input services and output services is crucial for credit eligibility. Lastly, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's argument on export definition, stating that electronic transmission through Indian telecom authorities does not negate the export nature of the service. However, it required the appellant to provide evidence linking foreign exchange payments received in Bombay to exports from Nashik units for refund eligibility. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further consideration based on the directions provided.In conclusion, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, granting the appellant an opportunity to substantiate their refund claims with necessary evidence.