TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2540
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and No. ST/DN-IV/395/2007-08 dated 31/1/2008. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeals on the following grounds: (I) Appellant has not obtained service tax registration prior to export of service. (II) Appellant has not followed statutory procedures of prior declaration laid down for export of services under Notification No. 12/2005-ST. (III) Call Center Services provided by the appellant was exempted up to 28/2/2006 from payment of service tax under Notification No. 8/2003 dated 20/6/2003. (IV) Appellant did not submit any Agreement with the Foreign based service recipient regarding provision of services. (V) Input Services in respect of substantial amount were received by the appellant under debit notes which are not admissible Cenvatable documents under the Service Tax Rules, 1994. (VI) Appellant though have submitted invoices raised by them to their foreign client, these invoices are only for the period April, 2006 to September, 2006 and not for the remaining period of the rebate claim i.e. October, 2006 to September, 2006 for which they have only submitted letters addressed to the said foreign c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter into agreement. Only requirement for rebate is that the service of the appellant should be exported which is not under dispute therefore on this ground rebate could not have been rejected. 3.3 As regard debit note received by the appellant in respect of input service, debit note is also admissible cenvatable documents so long it contains all the information as required under the service tax rules. There is no dispute about the charging of service tax by the service provider and payment thereof by the appellant therefore merely because service provider has raised debit note, rebate cannot be rejected. Moreover in the mechanism of rebate involved in the present case, the appellant is not required to take the Cenvat credit but straight away claimed rebate of service tax paid on the input services for this reason also merely because of the debit note raised rebate cannot be rejected as debit note is also proof of payment of service tax. 3.4 As regard non submission of all the invoices raised to the foreign client, he submits that it is incorrect to say that the invoices were not submitted. It can be seen from the refund claim and subsequent submission of the documents which clear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Therefore, said finding recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumba-ll Vs. J.P. Morgan Services India Pvt Ltd, [2015(38) STR 410 (Tri. Mum)] 7. On the second issue of late registration, the respondents have rightly relied on Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules 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 cited by Commissioner (Appeals) are relied upon. Further, judgment of the Kamataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. C. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar that lower authority could not have denied the refund thereof to the appellant on the ground of registration. 6.2 Regarding the issue that refund claimed in respect of input services used in the provision of exempted call center service, we find that it is Government Policy across the Board that in case of export neither input tax/ duty nor output tax/ duty should be exported, therefore either duty/ tax should not be charged at both the stage or if at all due to practical working if duty/ tax is charged, it has to be refunded to the exporter. In the present case export is not under dispute and service tax suffered on the input services is also not under dispute. Therefore even though output service is exempted the duty suffered on the input services has to be refunded to the exporter. This issue came up before this Tribunal and High Court earlier, wherein it was held as under: Dell International Services India P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2010(17) STR 540(Tri. Bang)]. 11. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. In respect of Appeal No. ST/ 115/2008, the rebate has been rejected on the ground that the service exported is not taxable. However, in the other appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vices. This is exactly the position that has been clarified, in the circular dated 20-6-2003." 12. In any case, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the orders 83 & 83A/2008 S.T. had already stated that the service rendered by the appellant and exported are taxable services. It is also not in dispute that the appellants utilized the various inputs services, which had already been enumerated in the submission of the appellants. Once the taxable service is exported and various input services have been utilized for providing the output service the appellants could be entitled for the rebate, which is equal to the service tax paid on the input services. Going by the definition of the "input service" under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the service utilized by the appellants for providing output service can indeed be considered as input services. We also take note that the definition of "input service" indicates that the interpretation should be done in a liberal way in view of the phrase "activities relating to business", there cannot be any dispute that the input services rendered by the appellants are all activities relating to the output services exported by the appellant. Mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of service is not under dispute. 6.4 As regard the non-submission of agreement, it is not acceptable ground for rejection of rebate claim for the reason that there is no statutory requirement of agreement between service provider and foreign service recipient, so long 100% services of the appellant have been admittedly exported and convertible foreign exchange were remitted by the foreign recipient, the export transaction has been completed, therefore merely for non-submission of agreement does not debar appellant from rebate claim. 6.5 Regarding debit note for the input services, we are of the view that firstly the debit note is also a admissible documents as proof of payment of service tax so long as it contains all the information required under the Rule 9(2) of the CCR, 2004. In the case of Pharma Lab Process Equipments P. Ltd Vs. CE, Ahmedabad [2009 (18) STR 914 (Tri. Ahd.)] Cenvat credit was allowed on the strength of debit note therefore debit note has been considered as valid documents. Secondly, in the present case, in our view, it is not the case of Cenvat credit, whereas it is a case of rebate of service tax suffered on the input service, the only requirement is that....