2016 (2) TMI 28 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal grants refund on Cenvat credit & refund claims, upholds appellant's right on key issues

Prudential Process Management Services India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Zone-II

Prudential Process Management Services India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Zone-II - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 764 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:1. Cenvat credit and refund claim prior to service tax registration.2. Cenvat credit on input services used in exempted call center services prior to 1st March 2006.3. Refund claim greater than the amount of service tax on the invoices.4. Cenvat credit on bank statements under banking and other financial services.5. Cenvat credit on services deemed to have no nexus with output service.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Cenvat Credit and Refund Claim Prior to Service Tax Registration:The appellant contested the rejection of Cenvat credit and refund claims for the period before service tax registration, citing the Karnataka High Court judgment in mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST Bangalore, which held that registration is not a prerequisite for availing Cenvat credit. The Tribunal agreed, finding no legal provision that restricts Cenvat credit to post-registration periods. The Tribunal reinforced this view with precedents, including Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs. J.P. Morgan Services India Pvt Ltd. and Beico Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE & ST, Vapi, confirming that the lower authority erred in denying the refund on this ground.2. Cenvat Credit on Input Services Used in Exempted Call Center Services Prior to 1st March 2006:The appellant argued that even though the output service was exempted, the refund of accumulated Cenvat credit on input services used for export should not be denied. The Tribunal upheld this argument, referencing judgments such as Dell International Services India P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore and Zenta Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai, which supported the refund of input services used in exempted services exported out of India. The Tribunal emphasized that government policy aims to avoid exporting taxes, thus supporting the appellant's claim.3. Refund Claim Greater than the Amount of Service Tax on the Invoices:The appellant conceded this issue, agreeing not to contest the rejection of the refund claim amounting to Rs. 3581/-. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of this specific amount.4. Cenvat Credit on Bank Statements under Banking and Other Financial Services:The appellant argued that bank statements should be considered valid documents for Cenvat credit under the proviso to Rule 4A(i) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the proviso allows flexibility in documentation for banking and financial services, thus supporting the appellant's claim for refund based on bank statements.5. Cenvat Credit on Services Deemed to Have No Nexus with Output Service:The appellant contended that all services received were essential for providing call center services, which were entirely exported. The Tribunal agreed, stating that since the appellant's services were 100% exported, all input services were deemed used for providing output services. The Tribunal referenced previous refund orders in the appellant's own case and similar cases where refunds were sanctioned for identical services. The Tribunal upheld the refund claims for all services except for dry cleaning services, for which the appellant did not press the claim, and thus, the rejection of Rs. 2930/- was maintained.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to a refund except for the amounts of Rs. 3581/- and Rs. 2930/-, subject to verification of the refund amount calculation. The appeals were partly allowed in these terms.