Broadridge Financial Solutions India Pvt. Ltd Versus CCT, Secunderabad GST
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1252 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 20-2-2019
Appeals No. ST/30064/2018, ST/30065/2018, ST/30066/2018 – A/30222 – 30224/2019
Service Tax
Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Shri Purushotham Reddy, CA for the Appellant.
Shri Arun Kumar, Jt. Commissioner /AR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per: Mr. P.V. Subba Rao
1. All these appeals are on the same issue in respect of the same appellant and hence are being disposed of together.
2. The appellant herein exports software services. They avail the CENVAT Credit on inputs and input services under CCR 2004. After so availing, they have filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of inputs and input services which were used in export of services. These refund claims were allowed partly and rejected partly by the original authority. Aggrieved, the app
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ract service was excluded from Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004; he asserts that the exclusion was related to construction of buildings and they had hired the services to paint the building which is not the same as construction of building and therefore they are entitled to the benefit of this credit as well as consequential refund. Insofar as the third issue of submission of documents is concerned, he admits that they were not able to substantiate their claims with proper documentation during the relevant period because they had misplaced their records but have since been able to find all the records and will be able to justify each of their claim with proper documentation as required.
4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the first appellate authority and explains that to the extent relief was admissible, they were given relief by the first appellate authority. Insofar as the credit which is sought to be denied on the ground that it is specifically excluded under Rule 2(l), it is his asse
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ppellant claimed refund of Rs. 2,33,33,967/-, of which the lower authority sanctioned an amount of Rs. 2,22,21,689/- and rejected an amount of Rs. 11,12,278/- on the ground of lack of nexus with the output service and non production of documents. The first appellate authority in the impugned order allowed their appeal except that to the extent of Rs. 10,15,812/- on the ground as listed in table-I of the Order-in-Appeal, as follows.
(b) Appeal No. ST/30065/2018: This appeal involved denial of credit of Rs. 70,881/- on the ground of lack of nexus with the output service and an amount of Rs. 7,05,215/- on the ground that the documents were not submitted or that they were excluded under Rule 2(l) as input services. The first appellate authority has allowed refund of Rs. 57,786/- which was rejected on the lack of nexus and denied refund of Rs. 13,095/- on the ground that the appellants have not insisted on the input credit. Of the credit of Rs. 7,05,215/- rejected by the lower authority,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
refund on this count. Insofar as the allegation that there is no nexus between the input service and the output service is concerned, once the credit of CENVAT is allowed, refund of the same cannot be denied. In fact when the CENVAT credit is wrongly availed, the same needs to be recovered from the appellant, by issuing of an appropriate show cause notice. As far as the cases where credit was taken when the specific service clearly excluded from Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 is concerned, it is true that the credit first be denied. However, where the appellant is not entitled to the credit in the first place, it is inconceivable to refund the same. This pertains to such cases where the rule specifically excludes certain types of services from the scope of input service. As far as the cases where the invoices were not in the name of the appellant are concerned, what is relevant is whether the appellant had received those services in production of their output services, even if there is some er
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
giving refund of the same under Rule 5 of CCR 2004.
(c) Wherever refund was denied because of the appellant's inability to produce the necessary documents, but which the appellant now claims to be able to produce, need to be examined and credit should be allowed to the extent that they are able to substantiate their claims.
7. All the appeals are remitted to the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claims as indicated herein above.
(Pronounced in open court on 20.02.2019)
=============
Document 1
TABLE-1
Sl.No.
Disputed input Amt.
service
involved
Rs.
Lower
authority's
findings
Appellant's contentions
Decision of Appellate forum.
1
2
3
4
1
Business Support
1081
Services/
Business Auxiliary
services-
(meal
2.
coupons)
Management,
maintenance
or
service
Services
utilized not
in or in
relation to
the output
services
rendered.
Services
utilized not
in
in o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
; hence
service tax paid on such
services is directly in nexus
with the services exported by
the appellants and is eligible.
The categorized services are
specifically used for providing
output services and not
covered in exclusion part of
the definition of input service';
the services are required for
the maintenance or upkeep of
the hardware equipment and
other infrastructure of the
appellant without which they
cannot perform their business
operations;
केनà¥à¤¦à¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯
32412
yeas
à¤à¤•
जी à¤à¤¸ टी
आयà¥à¤•à¥à¤¤ का
Commissioner of Central Excise &
का कारà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤²à¤¯
GST
bad *
6
The service pertains to meal coupons
which are for personal consumption of
the employees of the company and
specifically excluded from the
definition of input s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
IA
TECHNOLOGY SERVICES [2016
(43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. Hyd.)] (pest
control service and Photo copying
service) ;Denial of refund to this extent
is not legally sustainable and therefore
set aside with consequential relief and
the impugned order stands modified to
this extent.
OIA NO.: HYD-SVTAX-000-AP2-0192-17-18-ST DT 28.08.2017
Document 2
Total
87,016
3.
Works
Service
Contract 8,48,391
4
General
Insurance
1,27,118
Exclusion
clause of
rule 2(1) of
the CCR,
5.
Chartered
Accountant's
Service
9450
No Invoice
6
Installation
equipment
of 39,222
Total
11,12,278
Exclusion
clause of
rule 2(1) of
the CCR,
2004
2004
No proper
invoice
These services are used by
the appellants in the
renovation and modernization
of the premises and the
services are specifically
covered in the inclusive part of
the definition of the input
service as per Rule 2 (I) of th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r
The denial of credit /refund was on
the ground of Exclusion clause under
Rule 2(1) of the CCR, 2004; the
appellants have not substantiated their
claim with documentary evidence;
the onus casts with the appellants to
prove their eligibility to avail the said
credit; thus the appellants have not
discharged their onus in term of Rule
9(6) of the CCR, 2004; Denial of
refund to this extent is legally
sustainable and accordingly is upheld.
The denial of credit /refund was on the
ground of Exclusion clause under Rule
2(1) of the CCR, 2004; the appellants
have not substantiated their claim with
documentary evidence; the document
dated 12.01.2016 submitted in respect
AGC Networks Ltd., indicates the
category of service as WCS in which
case the onus casts with the
appellants to prove their eligibility to
avail the said credit; thus the
appellants have not discharged their
onus in term so Rule 9(6) of the CCR,
2004; D
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
