2025 (6) TMI 1267 - AT - Service Tax

Input services eligible for rebate under Notification 12/2005-ST without requiring one-to-one nexus with output services

M/s. Foundever CRM India Private Limited (Formerly known as M/s. Sitel Operating Corporation India Limited) Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore

CESTAT Bangalore allowed partial appeal regarding rebate claims under Notification No. 12/2005-ST. The revenue authorities rejected refund claims arguing ... Rebate claims under Notification No. 12/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005 - rejection on the ground that the conditions of the Notifications were not satisfied and also certain refund claims were rejected on the ground that the input services do not qualify as input services vis-à-vis the output services i.e., said to have been used in the export of taxable service. HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Excise, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] observed the assessee is entitled to CENVAT Credit on outdoor catering services as they are integrally connected with the business of manufacturing cement. This Tribunal in the case of Commr. of C. EX., Hyderabad-IV Vs. Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (3) TMI 35 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] has held that 'The activities related to tax returns other business activities can not be said as Information Technology Services which was excluded from Business Auxiliary Services and therefore, refund of cenvat credit on input services used in providing export of such services is can not be disallowed.' The above input services are eligible input services inasmuch as they are the essential services to render the output services and as held by various decisions relied upon by the appellant, there cannot be one-to-one nexus between the input services and output services. Therefore, the appellant is eligible for the refund as long as the eligibility of input service credit was not questioned at the time of availing the credit. There are no reason to sustain the order to the extent of denying the benefit on the input services, hence to that extent the refund is allowed - appeal allowed in part. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of service tax paid on various input services used in relation to export of taxable services under Notification No. 05/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006.Whether the input services claimed for refund must have a direct or indirect nexus with the output services (export services) to qualify as eligible input services for refund.The applicability and interpretation of the definition of 'input service' as per the relevant service tax laws and rules, particularly in light of the Supreme Court decisions in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. and subsequent rulings.The scope and extent of services that qualify as input services for the purpose of refund of accumulated cenvat credit when input services are used for export of taxable services.Whether the rejection of refund claims on specific input services such as Advertising Agency Services, Travel Agency Services, Business Auxiliary Services, Management Consultancy Services, and others was justified.The relevance of the time period and invoice particulars for eligibility of refund claims on input services, specifically concerning rent on immovable property services.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Entitlement to Refund of Service Tax on Input Services Used in Export of Taxable ServicesRelevant legal framework and precedents: The appellant filed refund claims under Notification No. 05/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006, which provides for refund of accumulated cenvat credit on input services used in export of taxable services. The key statutory provisions include the definition of 'input service' under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the conditions laid down for eligibility of refund of service tax paid on input services.Supreme Court decisions relevant to the issue include Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III, which dealt primarily with inputs (goods) and their nexus with manufacture of final products, and Ramala Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Meerut-I, which distinguished the said decision in the context of input services.Other precedents relied upon include Union of India Vs. Hansoli Devi, CCE Vs. GTC Industries Ltd., and Semco Electrical (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune, which have settled the law on refund of service tax on input services.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellant rendered Business Auxiliary Services and had accumulated cenvat credit on input services used in export of taxable services. The original authority rejected refund claims on certain input services for lack of nexus with output services. However, the Tribunal referred to authoritative rulings which establish that the definition of input service is wide and not restricted to services directly used in manufacture or provision of final output services.The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Commissioner of C. Excise, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., which clarified that the definition of 'input service' includes services used not only directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture of final products but also those integrally connected with the business of manufacture. The Tribunal emphasized that the expression 'such as' in the definition of input service is illustrative and not exhaustive, thereby covering a broad spectrum of services used in the business.Key evidence and findings: The original authority had allowed refund on some input services (Telephone, Courier, Leased Circuit, Maintenance and Repair of Computer services) but rejected refund on others (Advertising Agency Services, Travel Agency Services, Sample Analysis Services, Business Auxiliary Services, Management Consultancy Service, Manpower Recruitment Service, Rent-a-Cab Service, Security Services, Cargo Services, Maintenance or Repair Services, Outdoor Catering Services, Insurance Services, Commercial Coaching and Training Services) citing lack of nexus or non-eligibility.The Tribunal found that the appellant's grievance was limited to the rejection of refund on these input services which were held not to be used directly or indirectly in export services.Application of law to facts: Applying the broader interpretation of 'input service' as encompassing all services integrally connected with the business of providing output services, the Tribunal held that the impugned input services are eligible input services. The Tribunal noted that there need not be a strict one-to-one nexus between each input service and output service for eligibility.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue relied heavily on the Maruti Suzuki Ltd. decision to argue that input services must have nexus with output services to qualify for refund. The Tribunal distinguished this reliance by emphasizing the wider scope of 'input service' compared to 'input' and referred to subsequent judicial pronouncements and CBEC Circular No. 97/2007 which support a liberal interpretation favoring eligibility.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the input services rejected by the original authority are indeed eligible input services since they are essential and integrally connected to the appellant's business of providing export services. Consequently, the refund claim on these input services was allowed.Issue 2: Eligibility of Refund Claims Based on Invoice Period and Specific Input Services (Rent on Immovable Property)Relevant legal framework and precedents: The refund claim on rent on immovable property services was denied by the original authority on the ground that the invoices did not pertain to the relevant period of refund claim.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the original authority had allowed refund on certain input services but denied refund on rent on immovable property services due to non-compliance with the relevant period condition. There was no challenge by the appellant to this aspect in the appeal.Key evidence and findings: The original authority's finding on the time period and invoice particulars was accepted.Application of law to facts: Since the appellant did not contest the rejection on this ground, the Tribunal did not interfere with the denial of refund on rent on immovable property services.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's contention that invoices were not related to the specified period was upheld.Conclusions: Refund claims on input services not related to the relevant period, such as rent on immovable property services, were correctly rejected.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal articulated several core principles and made important determinations:'The definition of input service read as a whole makes it clear that the said definition not only covers services, which are used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, but also includes other services, which have direct nexus or which are integrally connected with the business of manufacturing the final product.''The expression 'such as' in the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service' is only illustrative and not exhaustive.''All services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product are covered under the definition of 'input service'.''There cannot be one-to-one nexus between the input services and output services.''The appellant is eligible for the refund as long as the eligibility of input service credit was not questioned at the time of availing the credit.'On the basis of the above, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by granting refund on the input services rejected by the original authority, while upholding the rejection of refund claims on input services not related to the relevant period.