2023 (8) TMI 699

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lobal Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the appellant are engaged in the business of export of Information Technology and Information Technology Enabled Services and is registered under Service Tax. The assesse filed 6(six) refund claim for the unutilized service tax paid on input services used for providing output services, i.e., ITSS, etc., exported during the period from July 2008 to September 2008, April 2009 to January 2009 and till March 2011 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Adjudicating Authority vide 6(six) Orders-in-original allowed eligible amounts and rejected ineligible amounts citing various reasons viz., absence of nexus between input service and output service, non-submission of documents, the refund claim being time barred ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Decorator Services; and d. Import of Services. i. Telecommunication Services; ii. Renewal of Software license; iii. Teleconferencing Charges; and iv. Transportation Charges. 5. Regarding 'Advertising Services' the learned Counsel draws our attention to Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 and submitted that the services related to advertising is inclusive portion of the definition of 'input service' and thus qualifies as an input service. Since the law is settled that the when input services are eligible for CENVAT credit, refund cannot be denied. Learned counsel draws our attention to the findings of the Tribunal in the case of Navaratna S.G. Highway Prop. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of S.T., Ahmedabad reported as 2012 (28) STR 166 (Tri.-Ahmd.). L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en in foreign currency and services of bank was an essential service for providing output service. Learned counsel draws our attention to the findings of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the matter of Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I reported as 2012 (276) E.L.T. 94 (Tri.-Mumbai). 7. Regarding 'Interior Decorator Services' the appellant submitted that during the relevant period prior to the amendment of Rule 6(5) of the CCR, Sub-Clause (q) pertained to 'Interior Decorator Service' and Rule 6(5) of the CCR, 2004 specifically allowed 'Interior Decorator Service' as an eligible input service and cannot be denied the benefit. In support of their contention learned Counsel draws our attention to the findings of the Ho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II reported as 2015 (37) STR 639 (Tri.-Mumbai) and also in the case of Capig Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara reported as 2009 (245) ELT 186 (Tri.-Ahmedabad) and also in the case of M/s Convergence India Private Limited reported as 2009-TIOL-888-CESTAT-DEL. 10. The Learned Counsel submitted that regarding Excise Appeal No.21522 of 2015 filed by the Revenue, the only ground for filing of the appeal by the Department challenging the impugned order is that the Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 5.8 of the impugned order held that for the purpose of refund claim of input service credit under Rule 5 the relevant date should be the date on which the consideration has been receive....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 200 (Tri.-LB) 11. He further submitted that as per the impugned order the CENVAT Credit for which refund has been claimed was held not eligible as they have been availed on input services having no nexus with export services. However, the said finding is unsustainable and cannot be taken up while examining the refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. 12. The Learned Counsel draws our attention to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV Vs. Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2021 (11) TMI 72 held that:- "14. On the basis of the factual findings recorded by the original authority a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on the said ground cannot be held to be valid. For the period subsequent to the introduction of substituted Rule 5 of the Rules, the only prescription for grant of refund in respect of export of output service is by applying the formula specified." 13. Learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned Order-in-Original and submitted that the assessee is not entitled for the refund claim other than the claim allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. 14. We have gone through the records and found that the finding of the Appellate Authority to reject the claim of the assessee on the ground that they are not eligible for the CENVAT credit since the input services have no nexus with the export service and it is unsustainable. As held by the Ho....