Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Versus M\/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 658 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 2-3-2018
Appeal No. ST\/593\/2010 – 40562\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Appellant
\nShri Joseph Prabhakar, Advocate for the Respondent
\nPer Bench
\nThe respondents are subsidiary company of M\/s. Sutherland Global Services Inc. USA dealing with customer management service. They offer IT enabled service, technical help service, call centre service on behalf of clients viz. Microsoft, HP etc, whose customers are located outside I<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n \/- thereby disallowing credit to the tune of Rs. 11,85,544\/- in respect of credit availed group medical insurance premium and insurance paid by the respondent. Aggrieved by allowing the credit, department has filed the present appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Versus M\/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt Ltd.Service Tax2018 (6) TMI 658 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 2-3-2018Appeal No. ST\/593\/2010 – 40562\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Appellant Shri … Continue reading “Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Versus M\/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt Ltd.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12206"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12206\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. On behalf of the Department, ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated the grounds of appeal.
\n3. The ld. counsel Shri Joseph Prabhakar appeared for the respondent and argued the matter. He submitted that the Commissioner has allowed the credit in respect of various services which have been used by the respondent for providing output services. The period involved is prior to 1.4.2011 when the definition of input services had a very wide ambit as it included the words “activities relating to business”. Th<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n