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>Refund claim for Business Process Outsourcing services allowed under specific notifications</h1> <h3>M/s. Sitel India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner GST And CCE</h3> M/s. Sitel India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner GST And CCE - 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 657 (Tri. Chennai) Issues Involved:Refund claim under Notification No. 12/2013 and Notification No. 40/2012 for Business Process Outsourcing services - Rejection of refund claims in Show Cause Notices - Orders-in-Original sanctioning partial refund - Rejection of claims by Commissioner (Appeals) - Compliance with conditions of Notifications - Denial of refund - Appeal decision.Analysis:1. Refund Claim under Notifications:The appellant provided Business Process Outsourcing services categorized under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and Business Support Services (BSS). They filed a refund claim under Notification No. 12/2013-ST and Notification No. 40/2012-ST for the periods January 2013 to March 2013 and January 2014 to March 2014. Two Show Cause Notices dated 25.05.2017 proposed to reject the refund claims due to alleged non-fulfillment of conditions stipulated in Notification No. 12/2013. The appellant objected to the rejection proposals made in the SCN.2. Orders and Appeals:Orders-in-Original were passed by the adjudicating authority sanctioning a partial refund. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claims, stating that the adjudicating authority exceeded the scope of the SCN for rejecting the partial refund. The appellant's contentions were not considered, leading to the dismissal of their appeals.3. Contention of the Parties:The appellant's consultant argued that the appellant had fulfilled the conditions of the Notifications, while the Revenue's representative contended that the authorities correctly granted refunds when the conditions were met. The Revenue emphasized that the absence of mentioning a Rule or condition in the SCN did not invalidate it, citing supportive case laws.4. Tribunal's Analysis and Decision:The Tribunal reviewed the contentions and lower authorities' orders. It noted that the appellant had claimed to have reversed credit and complied with the requirements for the periods in dispute. The Tribunal found that the appellant had satisfied conditions other than a procedural lapse regarding the time limit for refund claims. It emphasized that a procedural error should not negate a substantial benefit under a beneficial Notification, especially when eligibility is undisputed. As there was no violation of statutory provisions or rules, the Tribunal held that the denial of refund was unjustified. Consequently, it set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential benefits as per law.5. Conclusion:The Tribunal's decision on 21.02.2019 favored the appellant, overturning the denial of the refund claim and providing relief based on the compliance with the Notification conditions and the absence of substantial violations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
