TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nology Park of India, Hyderabad. They provided various services to M/s. Deloitte Tax LLP in USA like back office services and other assistance such as lead tax services, international assignment services, tax services etc. According to the Respondents, these services were covered under "Business Auxiliary Services" (BAS) and "Management Consultancy Services". They had also got themselves registered under the Service Tax Authority. The issue here is that the Respondent received various input services on which they had paid appropriate Service Tax, on which they availed the input Service Tax credit. According to them these input services were used in relation to providing the output service which is the Business Auxiliary service (BAS). Since....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2007 dated 9.4.2007 on the following grounds. a) That the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the services provided by the Respondent are covered under the taxable service of "Business Auxiliary Service" and "Management Consultant Service". b) That the services provided by the Respondent are covered under "Information Technology" service and which is excluded from the definition of BAS and hence, not a taxable service. c) That the Returns filed by the Noticee are self assessed and cannot be an aid to determine the proper classification of the service. d) That the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that it was not necessary that the input services should be used "directly or relatable directly" for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd property tax returns, as well as for computing advance tax estimates, wage card processing, and transfer pricing planning and execution. On going through the services to be provided by the Respondent to the party in America it is very clearly seen that these services do not relate to "Information Technology Service". In fact Information Technology Service is defined as follows: "Information Technology Service" means any service in relation to designing, developing or maintaining of computer software or computerized data processing, or system networking, or any other service primarily in relation to operation of computer system. On going through the scope of the services, we do not find that they are in relation to designin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....echnology Service", in that case the Respondent relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Vs. State of AP - (137 STC 620). Even if the services rendered by them are taken to mean "Information Technology services", by virtue of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Consultancy Services, software put in a media can be taken as goods and if the items exported are considered as goods, even then the refund of the credit taken should be available. 5.2 Further, one of the grounds in appeal memo by the Revenue is that the various input services have no nexus with the output services provided by the Respondent. The definition of "Input Service" is reproduced herein below. "Input service" me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the impugned order has gone through the facts in detail and has come to a conclusion that these services can rightly be termed as "Input Services" used by the Respondents to provide the output services. Once they are input services and when output services is taxable, then definitely they are entitled for the credit. 5.3 Another objection taken by the department is that Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules was amended with effect from 14.3.2006 and since the refund pertains to the period May 2005 to February 2006, the Respondents are not entitled for the refund as the amended Rule has only prospective effect. In this connection, the Respondent has given elaborate reason to show that the amendment will have retrospective effect. That ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear prior to 14.3.2006. In view of the decision of the Mumbai Bench, this objection cannot be sustained. It has also been observed that statute cannot be treated retrospective merely because it relates to the past action. A statute which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transaction already past, alone is called a retrospective legislation. It was also pointed out by the learned advocate that the suggestion that Rule amended on 14.3.2006 will be applicable only to goods or services exported after 14.3.2006 is not sustainable. This is precisely the contention raised by the assessee in Mysore Rolling reported at 1987 (....