2020 (9) TMI 938

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Information Technology Software Services was not taxable for the relevant period and it became taxable only w.e.f. 16.05.2008 hence refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 is not available. In respect of the other Appeals at Sl No. 3 & 4, the refund claims were rejected on the basis that the service provider was un-registered under ITSS for the period 11.05.2008 to 11.06.2008; the appellants did not have centralised registration and that there was no nexus between the output services provided and input services availed. 2. In respect of Appeals at Sl No. 1 & 2, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the following decisions: (i) mPortal India Wireless Solutions P Ltd Vs CST, Bangalore, 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar) (ii) Axa Business Services Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Bangalore, 2017 (49) STR 556 (Tri Bang) (iii) KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-I, 2013 (32) STR 356 (Tri. Mumbai) (iv) Infosys Technologies Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-I, 2017 (47) STR 24 (Tri. Mumbai) 2.1. He also submits that by Section 74 of the Finance Act, 2010 since clause (b) of the opening portion of Notification 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 has been amended with retr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vices in export of services and have earned foreign exchange. Refund should not have been denied. It is not the policy of the Government to export duties to international market. He relies upon the following decisions: (i) CST Vs Convergys India Pvt Ltd, 2010 (20) STR 166 (P & H) (ii) Jobelle Vs CCE, Mumbai I, 2016 (203) ELT 627 (Tri-Mumbai) (iii) Amalgamations Repco Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai, 2013 (31) STR 370 (Tri-Chennai) (iv) Chennai III Vs Same DuetzFahr India (P) Ltd, 2017 (6) GST 453 (Mad.) (v) KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-I, 2013 f(32) STR 356 (Tri. Mumbai) (vi) CC & ST, Bangalore Vs Suprajit Automotive Pvt Ltd, 2015 (37) STR 408 (Tri. Bang.) 3. The learned AR appearing for the Department reiterates the findings of OIO & OIA. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions and the records of the case. We find that all the issues raised in the instant appeals are no longer res integra. We find that Notification No. 5/2006 has been amended by the Finance Act, 2010 substituting the words "used for" in place of "used in". We also find that it has been clarified that the retrospective changes are made to ensure that the provisions of refund Notification and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006 which has been issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 specifically allows refund of Cenvat credit availed on inputs or input services which have been used for providing output services which have been exported. There is no condition in the Notification which prescribes that the refund will be allowable only in cases where the output services exported is liable for payment of service tax. Hence we find that such a view taken by the authorities below is without any basis. In any case the Tribunal in the case of KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 356 (Tri.) held that Cenvat credit for export of exempted service would be available as refund. 4.2. We further find that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement (supra) held as follows: 28. In the present case, the question is, whether outdoor catering services are covered under the inclusive part of the definition of "input service". The services covered under the inclusive part of the definition of input service are services which are rendered prior to the commencement of manufacturing activity (such as services for setting up, modernization....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y conceivable service used in the business of manufacturing the final products. Moreover, the categories of services enumerated after the expression 'such as' in the definition of 'input service' do not relate to any particular class or category of services, but refer to variety of services used in the business of manufacturing the final products. There is nothing in the definition of 'input service' to suggest that the Legislature intended to define that expression restrictively. Therefore, in the absence of any intention of the Legislature to restrict the definition of 'input service' to any particular class or category of services used in the business, it would be reasonable to construe that the expression 'such as' in the inclusive part of the definition of input service is only illustrative and not exhaustive. Accordingly, we hold that all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product are covered under the definition of 'input service' and in the present case, the outdoor catering services being integrally connected with the business of the manufacture of cement, credit of service tax paid out on catering services has been rightly allowed by the ....