TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der-in-appeal. The respondents have also filed Cross-objection in this matter. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent M/s. J.P. Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd. provide Banking and other Financial Services, Business Auxiliary Services, Business Support Services and Management Maintenance or Repair Services. Almost the entire services are exported due to which the service tax paid on input services get accumulated and cannot be utilized. Consequently, they applied for refund of the input service tax credit under notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14.3.2006 issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The adjudicating authority sanctioned part of the refund claim and rejected claims of Rs. 3,24,12,261/- and Rs. 2,73,21,073....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The second ground of appeal is that records do not establish that the services relating to invoices issued prior to taking Centralized Registration, have actually been used for providing the taxable output services. Further, that the Cenvat Credit Rules do not allow credit availed in premises not registered under Section 69 of the Service Tax Act. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The Ld. A.R. takes us through the list of 21 services which are alleged to be inadmissible. He objects to the admissibility of service tax credit in respect of advertising services which are used in turn of Manpower Recruitment Services, Transport service which is used for transportation of employees and supply of food and beverage service to the extent that part of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be decided is whether the input service tax credit which gets accumulated is refundable under NotificationNo. 5/2006. We find that there is no dispute that the service tax on inputs is accumulated and notification No. 5/2006 allows refund of such credit when the same cannot be utilized for provision of services which are exported. 6.1 The actual dispute centres around two issues. The first issue is whether the 21 input services is in respect of which refund of credit was claimed can be considered as input services used in providing output service which are exported without payment of service tax. For convenience we may refer to the definition of input service as below: "'input service' means any service:- (i) used by a prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubstituted; (ii) in clause (b), for the words "used in", the words "used for" shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted; From the amendment, is apparent that the scope of the admissibility of input services used in providing export services has been broadened to include of input services used for providing output services. On going through the list of 21 services, we find no reason to come to any sort of conclusion that these input services are not used in providing the services exported by the respondent. Further, on referring to the definition of input services we also find that input services used in relation to business are covered in the definition. Even, all input services used for modernization, renovati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant at this stage. 7. On the second issue of late registration, the respondents have rightly relied on Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rule under which registration is deemed to be granted within seven days of the application for registration. In the present case, the respondent had applied for centralized registration on 5.10.2006. Some communication took place thereafter between the respondent and the department which has been shown by the respondent and the registration was finally granted on 26.12.2008. We find nothing substantial in the series of communications to indicate that some important elements to be considered for registration are missing in the application, such as the premises which is sought to be registered. The judgments c....