TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 914
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter Research India Pvt Ltd, the appellant herein, is registered with Service Tax Department for providing various taxable services as that of rent-a-cab operator service, manpower supply agency service, business auxiliary service, legal consultancy and 119 other taxable services.' 2. The appellant had filed the refund claim of CENVAT credit in terms of notification number 27/2012 dated 18.06.2012 issued under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The refund of Rs. 1,40,291/- is with respect to common area maintenance service, the refund of Rs. 5,880/- is towards operational charges for vending machine service, the refund of Rs. 5,880/- is towards photography service and refund of Rs. 2,772/- is towards travel agent service (total amount c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said service will adversely impact the quality and efficiency of the provision of service exported. Hence, the service should be considered as eligible input service. Decision of this Tribunal, Bangalore bench, in the case of General Motors Technical Centre India Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Tax in Service Tax Appeal No. 20400/2020 dated 01.04.2021 along with CBEC circular no. 120/01/2010 dated 19.01.2010 is relied upon. 6. With respect to operation charges for vending machine service, it is mentioned that the machine was for the employees of the appellant and was essential for the efficiency of employees who were engaged in providing output services. Hence, this was also indirectly in relation to the output service. The refund of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... credit of the service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism. The same has wrongly been denied. While relying upon the following decisions. Learned counsel has prayed for the orders under challenge to be set aside and the appeal be allowed: i) General Motors Technical Centre India Pvt Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Tax in appeal no. 20400 of 2020 dated 01.04.2021; ii) CGST vs Convergys India (P) Ltd. reported as [2009] 21 STT 67; and iii) M/s Kijiji India (P) Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I reported as 2012 (12) TMI 825. 8. Learned DR on the other hand has reiterated the findings arrived at by Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned order. It is submitted that the original adjudicating authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounting, 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. But excludes..." ISSUE NUMBER 1 11. The perusal of the provision makes it clear that any service to fall under this said definition should have a direct or indirect relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance thereof, upto the place of removal or to the Output Service. The perusal also makes it clear that the definition is categorized with an inclusion clause. Hence, all the services mentioned specifically under the said inclusion claus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s has been held by this Tribunal in the case of General Motors Technical Centre India Pvt Ltd in Service Tax Appeal no. 20400 of 2020 decided vide final order no. 20100 of 2021 dated 01.04.2025. Further, it has reasonably been clarified by the department itself vide the circular dated 19.01.2010 relied upon by the appellant that if the absence of any service adversely impact the quality and the efficiency of the provision of service exported, it should be considered as eligible input service. Hence, it is held that the common area maintenance service has wrongly been denied to be the eligible service. So is true for the remaining other services, i.e. vending machine service and travel agent service, which were meant for the employees of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant and FRLON are two separate companies. The certificates of incorporations are annexed on record of the appeal memo. The power to take major policy decision is vest with the Board of Directors. Just because one of the Directors is a common Director, the adjudicating authorities have wrongly denied appellant and FRLON to be distinct persons. 17. It has also been brought to notice that the department, for the previous quarter, had sanctioned the refund filed by the appellant accepting the fact that the transaction between the appellant, the provider of output service and FRLON/foreign client, the recipient of service duly complied with the conditions given under rule 6(A)(1)(f) of Export of Service Rules, 1994. It is apparent from Ord....