TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Remands Cases for Reconsideration on CENVAT Credit Eligibility</h1> <h3>WNS Global Services (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II</h3> WNS Global Services (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II - TMI Issues involved:Refund of input service tax credit for export services; Rejection of refund claims by Mumbai, Pune, and Nasik Commissionerates; Eligibility of input services for refund; Nexus between input services and output services; Exemption of output services prior to specific dates; Export of services through a third party; Registration as an input service distributor.Analysis:1. Mumbai Commissionerate Refund Claims:The appellant, a service provider under 'Business Auxiliary Services,' sought refund of input service tax credit rejected by Mumbai Commissionerate for the period April 2006 to March 2008. The rejection was based on the premise that certain input services were not directly related to the output services and errors in refund computation. The Tribunal found that the input services like auditing, advertising, rent-a-cab, catering, security, etc., were essential for the output services. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that these services qualified as eligible input services under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration.2. Pune Commissionerate Refund Claims:Regarding the Pune Commissionerate refund claims for the period before 2006, rejected due to the exemption of output services (Call Centre Services) prior to 01.03.2006, the Tribunal referred to its earlier order stating that the rules in force at the time of filing the claim should apply. It also cited a Bombay High Court judgment allowing CENVAT credit for input services used in manufacturing final products for export, even if the final products were exempted. The rejection based on the exemption of output services was deemed unfounded, and the case was remanded for review.3. Nasik Commissionerate Refund Claims:Concerning the Nasik Commissionerate refund claims rejected for various reasons, including the indirect export of services and the absence of registration as an input service distributor, the Tribunal found the grounds for rejection unsustainable. It clarified that export through a telecom provider does not negate the export, and the taxability of output services does not affect the eligibility of input services for credit in export transactions. The rejection based on lack of ISD registration was deemed premature, as the focus should be on verifying the use of services in output services. The case was remanded for further examination.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the cases to the respective adjudicating authorities for reconsideration in light of legal precedents and specific guidelines provided, emphasizing the need for evidence supporting the export nature of services and timely claim filings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
