2016 (5) TMI 684 - HC - Service Tax

Appeals dismissed challenging tax tribunal's order, emphasizing timely legal arguments.

The Principal Commissioner of Service Tax Service Tax Commissionerate-II Versus M/s. MModal Global Services Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as CBay Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The Court dismissed the appeals challenging the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order, emphasizing that the introduction of taxable ... Refund claim - Export of Sevices - Held that:- Cenvat credit would be available of input services even if out-put services are non-taxable. - the appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of PR. Commissioner of Service Tax Versus Mportal (India) Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (4) TMI 409 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Therefore in view of this, the present appeal is disposed of. - Appeal disposed of Issues:1. Appeal against order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.2. Applicability of Cenvat credit on input services.3. Interpretation of Clause (zzzze) of Sec.65(105) of Finance Act, 1994.4. Consideration of limitation in refund claims.Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to appeals challenging an order dated 05.06.2015 by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel, noted that the present appeals fall under the decision of a previous case, CEA No.5/2016, decided on 09.03.2016. In the earlier case, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Authority to consider refund claims with respect to limitation. The Court observed that the Tribunal's decision was based on certain directions. The appellant's counsel contended that Cenvat credit should be available for input services even if output services are non-taxable, citing a specific case law. However, the Court highlighted that while certain services became taxable under Clause (zzzze) of Sec.65(105) of Finance Act, 1994 from 16.5.2008, it does not imply that they were not considered services before that date. The Court also noted that the appellant did not raise this argument before the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.2. The Court emphasized that the introduction of Clause (zzzze) under Section 65(105) making certain services taxable from 16.5.2008 does not negate the existence of those services as non-taxable before that date. The appellant's failure to raise this argument before the Tribunal was a crucial factor leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision was in line with the legal provisions and did not warrant interference. Consequently, the Court dismissed the present appeals in alignment with the earlier order in CEA No.5/2016.3. The judgment underscores the importance of raising pertinent legal arguments before the appropriate authorities, such as the Tribunal, to ensure a fair consideration of the case. The Court's decision in this matter highlights the significance of adhering to legal procedures and presenting all relevant aspects of the case during the appellate process. By dismissing the appeals, the Court reaffirmed the principle that parties must raise all relevant arguments and considerations at the appropriate stages of legal proceedings to seek a favorable outcome. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of thorough legal representation and strategic argumentation in legal disputes to secure a just and equitable resolution.4. In conclusion, the judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised in the appeals concerning Cenvat credit on input services and the interpretation of Clause (zzzze) of Sec.65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court's decision underscores the significance of presenting all relevant legal arguments before the Tribunal and adhering to procedural requirements to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute. By dismissing the appeals, the Court reaffirmed the importance of legal diligence and strategic advocacy in navigating complex legal matters effectively.