2017 (4) TMI 1047 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Upholds Decision on Cenvat Credit Refund for Exported Services

Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai Versus Arisaig Partners (India) Pvt. Ltd., Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions in favor of the respondents regarding the refund of cenvat credit of service tax on input services ... Refund of CENVAT credit - input services used for providing output services which are exported - Held that: - there is no dispute to the fact that the respondents herein have exported the services to a recipient situated abroad and for rendering such services, they had engaged the service providers who have discharged service tax liability, of which cenvat credit has been availed - following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of AMP Capital Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (6) TMI 122 - CESTAT MUMBAI] the impugned orders are correct - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. Issues:Refund of cenvat credit of service tax on input services used for providing exported output services.Analysis:The appeals filed by the Revenue against certain orders-in-appeal were listed for disposal. The issue in all these appeals revolved around the refund of cenvat credit of service tax on input services used for providing output services that were exported. The first appellate authority had ruled in favor of the respondents, citing precedents and circulars. The period involved in these cases ranged from April 2009 to June 2009, and in one case, up to February 2010. The Revenue sought to amend the grounds of appeal to require the respondents to prove that the services rendered were used outside India, but this request was rejected by the Tribunal as no show cause notice was issued on this ground. The departmental representative also argued that certain rules were not considered properly by the lower authorities. However, the counsel for the respondents pointed out that similar issues had been decided in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal in previous cases. The departmental representative mentioned that the Revenue was in appeal against all these cases, which were still pending in higher courts. After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the impugned orders were correct and did not require any interference, as the respondents had exported services to a recipient abroad, and the lower authorities' decisions were in line with the Tribunal's previous judgments. Therefore, the appeals were rejected.