TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m time to time. In the various impugned orders, several input services have been held to be not eligible for availing CENVAT credit for the reasons that these services have no nexus with the output service of the appellant i.e., the Information Technology Software Service. In addition, various amounts also came to be disallowed for a variety of other reasons. Aggrieved by these impugned orders, the present appeals have been filed. 2. Since all these appeals deal with the common issue of entitlement of the payment for input service credit and refund of the same, all the appeals are being disposed of through this common order. 3. With the above background, we heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain, learned Consultant for the appellant as well as Dr. Ezhilmathi, learned AR for the Revenue. 4. The learned consultant submits that as many as 24 types of input services have been held to be inadmissible for purposes of availing CENVAT credit during the period under question. The period under dispute cover both the period from April 2008 to March 2011 and further, for the period from April 2011 to June 2012 after the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 3) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 5 Outdoor Caterer s Service 6,086,695 1) Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd [2011-TIOL-866-HC-KAR-ST] 2) CCE Vs. Deloitte Tax services (P) Ltd [2008-TIOL-629-CESTAT-BANG] 3) CCE Vs. GKN Sinter Metals Ltd, Aurangabad-2009 (6) TMI 46-CESTAT Mumbai 4)JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-III [2016 (41) S.T.R. 990 (Tri. - Mumbai)] 5) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 6 Business Support Service 4,978,278 1) In our own case- Final Order No. 21397/2016 dated 13-Dec-2016 2) Megma Design Automation (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2015 (40) S.T.R. 800 (Tri. - Bang.)] 3) HCL Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Noida[2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)] 4) Castrol India Limited Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (291) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] 5) Kijiji (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. Mumbai-I [2013 (32) S.T.R. 661 (Tri. - Mumbai)] 6) CCE Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd [2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 9) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 10 Chartered Accountant s Service 2,513,801 1) COMMISSIONER OF S.T., MUMBAI-II Vs. MMS MARITIME (INDIA) PVT. LTD.[2016 (41) S.T.R. 869 (Tri. - Mumbai)] 2) M/s Arm Embedded Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax [2016-TIOL-2565-CESTAT-BANG] 3) Utopia India Pvt Ltd Vs. CST Bangalore [2011-TIOL-1080-CESTAT-BANG] 4) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 5) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 11 Cleaning Services 1,643,572 1) Balkrishna Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2010 (254) E.L.T. 301 (Tri.) = 2010 (18) S.T.R. 600 (T) 2) Rotork Control (India) P. Ltd. v. CCE - 2010 (20) S.T.R. 684 (Tri.) 2) CCE, Salem v. ITC Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-780-CESTAT-MAD = 2011 (268) E.L.T. 89 (Tri.-Chennai) = 2012 (26) S.T.R. 92 (Tri.-Chennai) 4) NTF (India) Ltd. v. CCE - 2013 (30) S.T.R. 575 (Tri.-Del.) 5) Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE - 2013 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [2015 (37) S.T.R. 768 (Tri. - Mum)] 5) BANK OF BARODA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-II [2015 (37) S.T.R. 488 (Tri. - Mum)] 6) DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEM P. LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF CUS., C.E. & S.T., NOIDA [ 2014 (36) S.T.R. 1089 (Tri. - Del.)] 7) Castrol India Limited Vs. CCE, VAPI [2013 (291) ELT 469 (Tri-Ahm)] 8) J.P. Morgan Service (I) Pvt Ltd. Vs. CST Mumbai [2016 (42) S.T.R. 196 (Tri.-Mum)] 9) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs CCEx, NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. - Del.)] 10) Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Ltd. v. CCE., LTU. Bangalore [2011 (24) S.T.R. 645 (Tri-Bang)] 11) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 16 Legal Consultancy Service 208,068 1) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)] 2) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 17 Business Auxiliary Service 153,179 1) SEMCO ELECTRIC PVT LTD Vs. CCE, Pune-I [2011-TIOL-965-CESTAT-MUM] 2) J.P. Morgan Service (I) Pvt Ltd. Vs. CST Mumbai [2016 (42) S.T.R. 196 (Tri.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i. - Del.)] 23 Information Technology Software Service 27,818 1) M/s Arm Embedded Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax [2016-TIOL-2565-CESTAT-BANG] 2) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 3) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 24 Telecommunication Service 6,735 1) CCE v. Axiom Impex International Ltd. 2) Grasim Industries Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2008 (11) STR 168 (Tri-Del)] 3) CCE Bhavnagar Vs. Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd [2008 (12) STR 67 (Tri-Ahm)] C4) CE Raipur Vs. HEG Ltd [2010 (18) STR 446 (Tri-Del)] 5) Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST Hyderabad-IV [TS-240-CESTAT-2016-ST] 6) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 7) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 5. The learned AR for the department reiterated the findings of the authorities below, however, she fairly agrees that the subsequent decisions of the Tribunal cover the services under dispute. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e net CENVAT credit which is required to be taken as per CENVAT Credit Rules. However, she further submits that the definition of exports turnover services and total turnover was amended with effect from 1.4.2012 by Notification No.18/2012-CX (NT) dated 17.3.2012 and it was specified that the same is to be determined on the basis of realization of export proceeds and not on the basis of export invoice value. This fact also needs to be verified. After considering the submissions of both parties on the subject, we are of the view that the dispute is with reference to whether the maximum refund allowable is to be calculated on the basis of gross or net CENVAT credit which has been taken by the appellant. The related point is also with reference to the definition of exports turnover services from 4/2012 which may also have a bearing on the total refund allowable to the appellant. In view of the above, we set aside the findings of the lower authorities on the subject matter of export turnover ratio and remand the issue back to the original authority for redetermination of the same keeping in view the decisions on the subject including the decisions cited above and also re-determine s....