2021 (3) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....20,53,480/-. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a 100% (EOU) under the Software Technology Park of India (STPI) Scheme of the Foreign Trade Policy and is primarily engaged in exporting information technology enabled back office support services to Goldman Sachs group companies located outside India. The appellant filed a refund claim being the unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax availed on input services set to have been used for providing output services i.e. Information Technology Software Service and Business Auxiliary Service exported by them as per Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. On scrutiny of the claim, certain discrepancies were no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er submitted that in the impugned order in Para 9.4, the Commissioner (Appeals) has based his judgment on the eligibility, on the basis that whether absence of such services would, in any way adversely affect the performance of rendering of output services by the appellant. He further submitted that, in law, this is not the test to be applied for deciding the eligibility rather, the true test for eligibility is whether the input service is used by the provider of taxable service for providing output service and that the input services should not be covered by the exclusion clause. He further submitted that in the present case, the appellant has, indeed, used these input services for providing their output services and are also not covered b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pia India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST, Bangalore, 2011 (23) STR 25 (Tri. Mumbai) • Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs CCE (LTU), Mumbai, 2015 (38) STR 217 (Tri. Mumbai) 5. Other taxable • Manhattan Associates (I) Dev. Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST, Bangalore, 2017 (5) GSTL 99 (Tri. Bang.) • Apotex pharmachem India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Bangalore-I, 2017 (50) STR 26 (Tri. Bang.)- installation service 6. Grant of Interest • Scribetech India Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCT, Bengaluru, 2020 (43) GSTL 245 (Tri. Bang.) 4.1. He also submitted that with regard to certain disputed input services, the Commissioner (Appeals) has concluded that the said input service is excluded from the definition of the Input Servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2017 (48) STR 173 (Tri. Chan.) 4.2. Learned Counsel, out of these 7 input services, did not press for the refund in relation to two input services, viz. Health Club and Outdoor Catering and has only prayed the refund of five input services, viz., Architect, Club & Association, Event Management, General Insurance and other taxable services. Learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer Pvt. Ltd., (ST/20259, 20260/2020) Final Order No.20062-20063/2021 dated 08.03.2021. 5. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record as well as the various decisions relied upon by....