TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 845
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the period April 2010 to September 2010 and the Order in Original No.197/2012 dated 14.09.2012 pertaining to the period October 2010 to December 2010. 3. The common facts are that the Appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) under the Software Technology Park of India (STPI) and is registered for providing Business Auxiliary Services (BAS). The Appellant filed refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) claiming the refund of unutilized input services credit for the aforesaid periods. In support of their claim, the Appellant had provided copies of requisite documents. After due process of law, the Adjudicator rejected an amount of Rs.13,05,517/- being the input service credit taken on rent a cab service on the ground that the said input service was not used for providing output service pertaining to the refund claim for the period during October 2010 to December 2010. Further, an amount of Rs.43,846/- was disallowed as the input service invoices were not produced. It was thus found that a Cenvat credit of Rs.12,49,363/- was required to be excluded from the claim amount. Likewise, for the refund claim pertaining to the period April 2010 to September 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and used for providing output services, the eligibility in respect of which having found to be tenable and on which Cenvat credit has been allowed as per various judicial precedents. The Appellant being a Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) / Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) employing around 11000 people, including a vast number of female employees, was providing service 24 X 7, continuously. Since the Appellant working hours are aligned to that of the Appellant's customers in USA, the employees also work in shifts. As per industrial norms, the Appellant provides transportation to these employees, including at odd hours in night without no public transport is available. Hence the input services related to rent a cab service incurred for providing transportation to the Appellant's employees is a input service integral to the provision of the Appellant's output service. Reliance is placed on the decisions in CCE, Bangalore III Vs. Tata Auto Compystems Ltd. 2012 (27) STR 338 (Kar), CCE, Bangalore I Vs. Graphite India Limited, 2012 (27) STR 130 (Kar), KPMG Vs CCE, 2014 (33) STR 96 (Tri - Del), Aeigis Limited Vs. CCE, C & ST 2014-TIOL-1970-CESTAT-BANG, Thiru Arooran Sugar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the formula adopted for sanctioning the refund by the Learned Assistant Commissioner in the Order in Original was correct. Ld. Counsel points out that in the formula applied by the Learned Assistant Commissioner, the value of services exported from SEZ unit was excluded from 'export turnover (numerator) and included only in the 'total turnover' (denominator). The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned Assistant Commissioner has erred in treating the same transaction differently for the purpose of numerator and denominator in the formula prescribed under Refund Notification. 9. It is therefore contended that the Learned Assistant Commissioner is not justified in including the services exported from SEZ unit in the 'total turnover' and excluding the same from 'exported turnover' even after accepting that the services are exported from SEZ unit. Ld. Counsel argues that the Ld. Appellate Authority ought to have appreciated that having considered turnover of SEZ Units in the total turnover, the Learned Assistant Commissioner has however inconsistently and unjustly excluded export turnovers pertaining t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....envat Credit Rules deals with Obligation of a manufacturer of dutiable and exempted good and provider of taxable and exempted services'. It is submitted that the Appellant is not engaged in manufacturing exempted goods or providing exempted services. Hence, the provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules is not applicable. 13. Ld. Counsel would submit that the Commissioner Appeals has erred in relying on OIO dated September 14, 2012 to hold that the Appellant has not maintained separate account for the SEZ and STPI units as stipulated under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules. It is contended that the facts recorded in the Order-in-Original No.197/2012(R) dated September 14, 2012 is grossly incorrect to the extent it states that the Appellant has informed that no separate books of account have been maintained for SEZ and STPI units. The Appellant has in fact to the contrary stated in the letter dated July 20, 2012 that separate accounts are maintained for STPI and SEZ units by way of separate books showing revenue, expenditure, input credit taken, domestic transactions, service tax collection etc. The Commissioner ought to have dismissed both the contentions of the Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he definition of "Input Service" contained in Rule 2(l) ibid provided that "activities relating to business" should be considered as input service. In this case, the Department has not raised any prior objections that the appellants had not availed the input services for accomplishing their business purpose. We find that the definition of 'input services' during the relevant period had a wide ambit as it included the words "activities relating to business." In various decisions, the Tribunal as well as higher judicial fora have repeatedly held that the said services are eligible for credit if it is established from records that assessee has used the said service for providing the output services. The decision in CCE Nagpur v Ultratech Cement Ltd, 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom) refers. We are also satisfied with the justifications as contended above by the Appellant and find that the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant are apposite in this regard. 19. We also find merits in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel that the lower authorities after recording that the appellant has submitted all the copies of FIRCs, Export Invoices, Input invoices based on which they have taken cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... input credit eligible for refund; and stating that the Appellant had not endeavoured to prove on record that they had maintained separate accounts, the Appellate Authority has held that the formula adopted by the Refund Sanctioning Authority was correct. 22. It is the contention of the Appellant that in the letter dated July 20, 2012, in fact the Appellant has stated to the contrary, namely, that separate accounts are maintained for STPI and SEZ units by way of separate books showing revenue, expenditure, input credit taken, domestic transactions, service tax collection etc. 23. We find from the letter dated July 20, 2012 that the Appellant had annexed to the Appeal that the said contention is correct. It is seen that in the said letter the Appellant has stated that the Appellant maintains separate accounts for our facilities as per the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant went on to contend that hence the question of including the Export turnover from their SEZ facilities, to arrive at the total turnover does not arise. It was also contended that the appellant operates from facilities both registered under STPI and SEZ and are exporters of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the sum total of the value of final products and output services exported during the given period in respect of which the exporter claims the facility of refund under this rule. 2. "Total turnover" means the sum total of the value of, - (a) all output services and exempted services provided, including value of services exported; (b) all excisable and non-excisable goods cleared, including the value of goods exported; (c) The value of bought out goods sold, during the given period. 26. From a reading of the Notification and the aforesaid conditions in the Appendix, it is evident that the refund of cenvat credit is specific to the registered premises in respect of which a provider of output service is not in a position to utilize the input service credit allowed under rule 3 of the said rules against taxable services exported. As a corollary, the export turnover and total turnover referred to in the Formula provided in condition 5 would also be only with reference to that particular registered premise. Concededly, the registered premises for STPI and that for SEZ are different. It is also the categorical averment of the Appellant that the appe....