TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....II/Div. IV/221-R/2010-11 dated 31 Dec 2010 Rs. 1,75,892/- 4. ST/89860/14 Sep-10 ST-II/Div. IV/205-R/2011-12 dated 18 Nov 2011 Rs. 2,45,426/- 5. ST/89861/14 Oct to Dec 2010 ST-II/Div. IV/299-R/2010-11 dated 30 March 2012 Rs. 4,18,268/- 6. ST/89864/14-MUM Jan to Mar 2011 ST-II/Div. IV/46-R/2011-12 dated 29 May 2012 Rs. 2,96,423/- 7. ST/89863/14-MUM Apr to Sept 2011 ST-II/Div. IV/218-R/2012-13 dated 30 January 2013 Rs. 4,64,523/- 8. ST/89862/14-MUM Jan to Mar 2012 ST-II/Div. IV/15-R/2013-14 dated 26 April 2013 Rs. 5,35,152/- 2. The facts of the case is that the appellant M/s. Ness Technologies (India) Private Limited holding service tax registration No. AAACA9649LST001 for providing taxable output services under category of Business Auxiliary Service, Business Support Service, Management consultant and information technology software service and had been availing Cenvat Credit of the service tax paid on various input service used by them in providing output service. They have been providing information technology software services falling under chapter 65(105)(zzze) of the Finance Act, 1994, and had exported the same to M/s. Ness Global Service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Bhagwati Traders. The part of the refund was rejected on the ground that appellant claimed refund on account of invoices not been submitted which is in respect of services which was received from out side India and the service tax paid on reverse charge basis. Charge of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is that appellant have not satisfactorily proved their intention. The part of the refund was also rejected on tele communication services on the ground that the said services are utilized for personal purpose, as on the bill of such service the name of company's employee appeared though the same was paid by the company and booked expenditure in the books of company's account. 3. Shri. Mihir Deshmukh, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as regard the nexus of input services with the export service, Ld Commissioner in his finding in one hand categorically held that services viz. Professional Consultancy fess, Chartered Accountant fees, Telephone charges, rent charges, Internet communication services, Repairs & Maintenance, Cleaning & Housekeeping, Security, manpower Recruitment & Supply serices, Information Technology, rent a cab, commercial Training & Coaching Services, com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvices, he submits that though the invoices of the telephone bill is in the name of the employees of the company, but the name of the company is also mentioned in the invoices and payment of telephone charges was made by company and the same has been booked as expenditure in the books of account, therefore recipient of services is company even though the name of the employee mentioned in the invoices. Telephone/mobile in relation to manufacture and business activity of the company, therefore the same is input services for providing out put service which has been exported hence the refund is clearly admissible. 4. Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found that even though the services are input service, nexus need to be established of such input services with output service exported. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly upheld the rejective of the refund claim ordered by the adjudicating authority. As regard the telecommunication services, he submits that telephone/mobile have been used by the employees of the company and bills are for sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders except for the fact that it was not considered as 'input services', as there was allegedly no credit nexus with the output service provided by the Appellants and exported. From the above observations, it is clear that there is no dispute even by the Original authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) that all these services covered under the definition of input services therefore Cenvat Credit is admissible. However, the refund was rejected on the said services on the ground that appellant could not establish nexus of these services with output services. In this regard, I am of the view that since, except small part for which no refund claim was filed, entire services have been undisputedly exported; no one to one co-relation is required to be proved. When entire services have been exported then it cannot be said that nexus of input services with the output services is not established and therefore the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the claim of the said services. As regard telephone services, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim on the ground that it is for personal use of the employee and the bill for such telecommunication service is in the....