2022 (3) TMI 193 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal grants relief to appellants based on established precedents & interpretations.

INGERSOLL - RAND INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeal and providing relief based on established precedents and legal interpretations. The ... Refund of CENVAT Credit - export of services - Consulting Engineering Services or Information Technology Software Services - applicability of Circular No.62/11/2003 dated 21.8.2003 CBEC - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra having been decided in favour of the appellants by Tribunal for the past periods in M/S. INGERSOLL RAND TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CENTRAL TAX BANGALORE SERVICE TAX- I [2019 (11) TMI 1070 - CESTAT BANGALORE] and by the Department itself in a subsequent period in the case of appellant themselves, nothing survives in the impugned order. Appeal allowed. Issues:Refund claims for the period April 2006 to June 2007 - Classification of services as taxable under Section 65(105)(g) of Finance Act, 1994 - Nexus between input services claimed and output service provided - Submission of requisite documents - Eligibility of credit claimed - Admissibility of CENVAT in case of a refund claim.Analysis:The appellants filed refund claims for a total amount of Rs. 78,68,626 for the period April 2006 to June 2007. Show-cause notices alleged that the appellants were engaged in developing software or computerized engineering drawings in solid models, which were deemed non-taxable services. The notices also raised concerns about the nexus between input services claimed and the output service provided, as well as the submission of requisite documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the show-cause notices, holding that the activity of software development was appropriately classified as 'ITSS' under Section 65(19) and was not taxable during the relevant period. The Commissioner also stated that when a particular service is not taxable, the availment of input or input service is not permissible, thereby questioning the eligibility for a refund under Rule 5.The appellants argued that the services rendered were akin to 'Consulting Engineering Services,' taxable under Section 65(105)(g) of the Finance Act, 1994. They contended that the exported services were of a consulting engineer, which had been deemed taxable. The appellants highlighted that the use of CAD/CAM software to provide software and export conceptualized designs did not categorize the service under 'ITSS.' They referenced relevant case laws and circulars to support their claim, emphasizing that the primary activity, not the computer use, determined the service classification. The appellant also relied on retrospective amendments to Notification No.5/2006 and relevant case laws to support their claim for an eligible credit.In response, the Authorized Representative for the department reiterated the findings of the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal, maintaining the position taken in those decisions. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the issue had been previously decided in favor of the appellants by the Tribunal for past periods and by the Department itself in a subsequent period for the appellants. The Tribunal concluded that the issue was well-established by previous cases and did not require further analysis. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per law.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeal and providing relief based on established precedents and legal interpretations, emphasizing that the issue had already been settled in previous cases.