TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the present case are that the appellant are engaged in IT enabled services including BPO services, call centre and contact centre services, falling under the categories of 'Business Auxiliary Service' and 'Business Support Services' to companies located outside India. As per the appellant, these services qualify as "Export of Services" per Rule 6A of the erstwhile Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant filed rebate claims for Swachh Bharat Cess ('SBC') paid on input services used in exporting output services in accordance with Notification No. 39/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended by Notification No. 03/2016-ST dated 03.02.2016 for different periods amounting to Rs.1,47,81,600/-. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 03.10.2019, sanctioned a rebate of Rs.1,27,01,532/- while rejecting Rs.20,80,069/- for 13 services citing lack of adequate justification on nexus with the exported output services. 2.1 Aggrieved by the partial rejection vide Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) seeking rebate for : (i) Air Travel Agent Services: Rs.2,75,887/-; (ii) Event Management Services: Rs.90,142/-; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39/2012-ST, including export of services, payment of duty/tax, and non-availment of Cenvat Credit and these findings were supported by documentary evidence and were neither disputed nor required further scrutiny. He further submits that despite these clear cut findings, the Commissioner (Appeals) ignored these observations and remanded the matter without justification, failing to engage with the merits of the case. He further submits that it has been consistently held by the Courts that an appellate authority must provide reasoned findings. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following cases: * Mamta Steel India Pvt. Ltd. - MANU/UP/2184/2019 * Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (269) ELT 433 (SC) He further submits that the impugned order, to the extent it is against the appellant, is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 4.2 The learned Counsel further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has disregarded binding judicial precedents by remanding settled issues without justification. He further submits that the Tribunal in the appellant's own cases vide Final Order No. 53277/2018 dated 05.10.2018 in Appeal No. ST/54616/2014 and Final Order No. 52668....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner (Appeals) still entertained entirely new grounds in the department's appeal and remanded the matter instead of outright rejecting the department's appeal. 4.4 The learned Counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed without considering the specific findings in the Order-in-Original or the submissions made by the appellant, which amounts to a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and thus, ignoring material records and failing to apply judicial mind, renders the impugned order arbitrary and unsustainable. In this regard, he relies on the following decisions: * Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd vs. CCE, Pune - 2011 (263) ELT 481 (Bom.) * Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vs. Unistar World Trade - 2009 (235) ELT 770 (Mad.) * SJK Steel Plant vs. Government of India - 2006 (203) ELT 209 (A.P.) * Mediways Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Ludhiana - 2007 (215) ELT 541 (Tri. Del.) 4.5 The learned Counsel further submits that the appellant is fully eligible to claim a rebate of the Swachh Bharat Cess ('SBC') under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as SBC does not form part of Cenvat Credit under the Cenva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Tax, Delhi vs. Convergys India Pvt Ltd - 2009 (16) STR 198 (Tri-Del), which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2010 (20) STR 166 (P&H), and in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.), which held that input services extend beyond direct use to those integrally connected with business operations. 4.8 The learned Counsel further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) while denying the rebate for various input services, has failed to provide specific findings for each denied service and disregarded relevant judicial precedents and this rejection of the rebate lacks proper reasoning, making the impugned order liable to be set aside. 4.9 The learned Counsel further submits that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding limitation is incorrect as the Order-in-Original itself confirms that all claims were submitted within the stipulated time and are covered under Section 118 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submits that for the period February 2016 to March 2016, the original submission date was 02.02.2017, which is well within the limitation period. He relies on the decision in the case of CCE vs. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the original authority. 7. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter without considering the fact that the Order-in- Original had already established compliance with the conditions under Notification No. 39/2012-ST, including export of services, payment of duty/tax, and non-availment of CENVAT Credit. We also find that the original authority had examined this issue on the basis of documentary evidence but despite that, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ignored the findings of the original authority and still remanded the matter without justification. 8. We also find that the Tribunal in the appellant's own cases vide Final Order No. 53277/2018 dated 05.10.2018 in Appeal No. ST/54616/2014 and Final Order No. 52668/2018 dated 27.07.2018 in Appeal No. ST/55284/2014, has conclusively held that the appellant exports Business Support Services and Business Auxiliary Services as a BPO. Despite that, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has questioned the nature of services, violating judicial discipline. We also find that vide the Order-in- Appeal No. 223/STax/D-II/2011 dated 02.05.2011 for the previous....