2014 (8) TMI 260 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Grants Refund for CENVAT Credit Claim on Business Auxiliary Services

The Tribunal allowed the refund claim of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 17,14,716 for the period of October 2006 to June 2007. The services provided by ... Denial of refund claim of CENVAT Credit on the ground output service was exempted - Nature of export of call center services - IT service or BAS - Held that:- After going through the agreement and on a plain reading of Agreement between the foreign principal and respondent, it is found that services rendered by the respondent can be considered as a service rendered on behalf of the principal by the appellants to their clients. On going through the Agreement, the services provided by the appellants are classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service(BAS) which was taxable during the relevant period. Therefore, the respondent is eligible for refund claim - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues involved:Refund claim of CENVAT Credit on input service used in exempted output services.Interpretation of services provided as Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).Refund Claim of CENVAT Credit:The judgment addresses a refund claim of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 17,14,716 for the period between October 2006 to June 2007. The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application for early hearing, which was dismissed as the appeal was taken up for final hearing. The appeal concerned the accumulated CENVAT Credit due to input services used in output services that were exempted. The Special Counsel for the Revenue argued that the back office and call center services provided by the respondent were to be treated as IT services, leading to the rejection of the claim. However, upon reviewing the agreement between the foreign principal and the respondent, the Tribunal found that the services rendered could be considered on behalf of the principal by the appellants to their clients. The services were deemed classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS), which was taxable during the relevant period. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the respondent was eligible for the refund claim. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for verification of the eligibility of input services for CENVAT credit and determination of the admissible amount.Interpretation of Services as Business Auxiliary Service (BAS):The judgment delves into the interpretation of the services provided by the respondent as Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The Tribunal, after examining the agreement between the foreign principal and the respondent, concluded that the services rendered fell under the category of BAS, which was taxable during the relevant period. This interpretation played a crucial role in establishing the eligibility of the respondent for the refund claim of CENVAT Credit. By categorizing the services correctly, the Tribunal overturned the initial rejection of the claim and directed the original authority to verify the input services' eligibility for CENVAT credit. The detailed analysis of the services provided and their classification under BAS showcases the importance of accurate interpretation in determining tax liabilities and refund claims in indirect tax matters.This comprehensive summary provides a detailed analysis of the legal judgment, covering the issues of refund claim of CENVAT Credit and the interpretation of services as Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The judgment's in-depth examination of the agreement between the parties and the correct classification of services underscores the significance of accurate interpretation in resolving tax-related disputes effectively.