TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounds viz., (i) Rs.5,77,851/-, which was availed on basis of invoices in respect of import of services and the said Invoice No. 100040328 dated 25.10.2010 was not submitted along with the refund claim. (ii) Whereas, another Invoice No. 190012 dated 18.07.2010 where Service Tax was paid on 06.08.2010, did not pertain to the period in dispute. 3. The remaining Rs.6,65,907/- was rejected on account of the fact that the Adjudicating Authority did not find such input services as eligible for refund on the grounds that the nexus could not be established between services rendered and the business carried out by the Assessee. He relied on, inter alia, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd vs Commissioner [2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC)], which was also applied by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Kbace Tech Pvt Ltd vs CCE & ST, Bangalore [2010 (18) STR 281 (Tri-Bang.)] in relation to taxable service. 4. The Assessee went in Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) with respect to the rejected amount of the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals), decided the eligibility or otherwise in respect of the rejected refund claim. The Commissioner (Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r vs HEG Ltd [2010 (18) STR 446 (Tri-Del)] v) Conveyors India Services P Ltd vs CST, New Delhi [2012 (25) STR 251 (Tri-Del)] vi) CCE, Meerut-II vs Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Ltd [2011 (23) STR 268 (Tri-Del)] vii) Utopia India Pvt Ltd vs CST, Bangalore [2011 (23) STR 25 (Tri-Bang)] viii) ABB Ltd vs CCE & ST, Bangalore [2009 (19) STR 23 (Tri-LB)] ix) Dr. Reddy's Lab vs CCE, Hyderabad [2010 (19) STR 71 (Tri-Bang)] x) Jaypee Rewa Plant vs CCE, Bhopal [2010 (17) STR 519 (Tri-Del)] xi) Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs CCE, Jaipur [2015 (37) STR 608 (Tri-Del)] xii) Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd vs CCE, Lucknow [2012 (282) ELT 541 (Tri-Del)] xiii) Finolex Cables Ltd vs CCE, Pune-I [2009 (14) STR 303 (Tri-Mum)] xiv) Heartland Bangalore Transcription Ser (P) Ltd vs CST, Bangalore [2011 (21) STR 430 (Tri-Bang)] xv) CCE, Nagpur vs Ultratech Cement Ltd [2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom)] xvi) CCE, Mumbai-V vs GTC Industries Ltd [2008 (12) STR 468 (Tri-LB)] xvii) Victor Gaskets India Ltd vs CCE, Pune-I [2008 (10) STR 369] xviii) Semco Electrical Pvt Ltd vs CCE, Pune [2010 (19) STR 177 (Tri-Mum)] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utput service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal." 11. Considering the rival contentions - The main contention of the Appellant is that the 'inclusive clause' is independent of 'means clause' and therefore, both parts of the definition have to be considered harmoniously. He also emphasizes that wherever the term "such as" is used, it would be merely illustrative and not exhaustive. He further submits that the term "business" as used in inclusive part of definition is an integrated activity and therefore, activities in relation to business cover all the activities that are related to the functioning of a business and therefore, the term "business" cannot be given a restrictive definition. In their case, business is an integrated activity, comprising of development of softw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... input(s) and not any input service. In the case of Alliance Global Services IT India (supra), the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of service provider/exporter of ITSS, held various input services including Courier service, Management, Maintenance & Repair service, Manpower Recruitment service, Renting of Immovable Property service, etc., as having nexus with the exported service. The Tribunal also, inter alia, observed that Maruti Suzuki Ltd (supra) heavily relied upon by the Revenue was wrongly applied. The relevant Para of observation of the Tribunal is as under: "4. It is seen that the authorities below have denied the refund laying thrust on the judgment rendered in Maruthi Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.). In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with interpretation of the definition of "inputs" and not "input services". Therefore, the said case has been wrongly applied by the authorities below to hold that appellant is not eligible for refund. Further, it needs to be stated that the interpretation of "inputs" laid in Maruthi Suzuki Ltd. case was referred to the Larger Bench of Supreme Court, in the case of Ramala....