CESTAT, HYDERABAD BENCH ‘SMB’
GE India Exports (P.) Ltd.
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II
FINAL ORDER NO. A/30282/2016
APPEAL NO. ST/28026/2013
APRIL 6, 2016
CST v. Convergys India (P.) Ltd.  21 STT 67 (New Delhi-Cestat) (para 4.6).
Abhishek Rastogi, CA for the Appellant. Rajesh Jacob, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim.
2. The appellant, M/s. GE India Exports (P.) Ltd., is engaged in providing ‘Consultant engineer service’ and ‘Information Technology Software Services’ which are exported to entities located outside India. The appellant is 100% EOU registered under Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) Scheme at Hyderabad and Bangalore. It is registered with Service Tax Department under Centralised Registration. The appellant filed refund claim for the period October 2011 to December 2011 for an amount of Rs.62,14,543/- with respect to the unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various input services used for providing output services, in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14/03/2006.
3. The Assistant Commissioner after verification and processing sanctioned an amount of Rs.54,50,771/- and rejected refund claim to the tune of Rs.7,36,855/-. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who accepted the contentions raised by appellant, but upheld the original authority on some issues and rejected part of the balance claim. Being aggrieved the appellant has filed the present appeal disputing the denial of refund/credit of Rs.6,83,882/-. The learned consultant Shri Abhishek Rastogi submitted that out of Rs.6,83,882/- for which the appeal has been filed, the appellant is not contesting an amount of Rs.4,669/-. Thus the dispute in the appeal is limited to Rs.6,78,883/-. The appellant has submitted a table showing the details of the amount disallowed which is as under:—
Amount disallowed (Rs.)
Input invoice addressed to electronic city which is not a service tax registered premises
The input services on which CENVAT availed are not related to export of service
Input service credit availed on car parking charges and maintenance charges
Housekeeping services on which CENVAT availed are not related to export of output services
Service Tax details not shown on the input service
4.1 The learned consultant submitted that one of the reason for rejecting the refund is that the input service invoices were issued to the premises/address of the appellant which was unregistered. CENVAT credit of Rs.3,19,736/- was disallowed for this reason. The invoices were issued to the Bangalore premises by the service providers. This premises was not registered with Service Tax Department. He referred to Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and argued that there is no statutory obligation that the premises of the service recipient has to be registered and that such registered address should be shown in the invoices. The said Rule states that the invoice should bear the service tax registration number of the service provider. It is sufficient that the name, address details of service recipient is disclosed in the invoice.
4.2 Business Support Services and Business Auxiliary Services were availed for the cost sharing expenses/cross charging of expenses towards Telecommunication, Internet port charges which are shared by group entities of GE. Such expenses are already paid by the group entity and have been cross charged to the appellant which are reimbursable. These services are highly essential for providing the output services.
4.3 Management or Business Consultants Service was availed as the appellant does not have enough expertise in connection with the liaisoning with Revenue authorities in connection with direct and indirect taxes. These input services are used by appellant in smooth liaisoning and is very much necessary for providing the output services.
4.4 Commercial Training or Coaching Services were used to train employees to enhance their skill and ability in imparting the output services. Erection, Commissioning, Installation Service (Rs.7,516/-) is used for doing small works of fitting and renovation in the office premises. The service provider has paid the service tax under this category though the work involves minor works like armrest reupholstery, chair shampio washing, service and fitting charges.
4.5 Chartered Accountant Service was availed for processing provident fund, TDS and filing other statutory compliances. Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services were used to test the indoor air quality to ensure safe and secure workplace. Management, Maintenance and Repair Services (Rs.1,437/-) was used for annual maintenance charges and other repair works done in the premises.
4.6 It was submitted that there is no dispute as to the credit availed by appellant. The appellant has been disclosing the credit details in the returns. In CST v. Convergys India (P.) Ltd.  21 STT 67 (New Delhi-Cestat), it was observed that there cannot be two separate yardsticks for availing credit and refund of the same. This was clarified in the Board’s Circular dated 19/01/2010. He pleaded that the appeal may be allowed.
5. Against this, the learned AR Shri Rajesh Jacob reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the disallowance of credit is correct and proper.
6. I have heard the rival submissions. Major portion of the refund is denied for the reason that the invoice is issued to the unregistered premises of the appellant. As per Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, there is no requirement that the premises of the service recipient has to be registered. Therefore, the denial of refund on this ground is unjustified. The invoice with regard to Erection, Commissioner and Installation services shows that the woks done is minor work of cleaning and remodeling chairs. The service provider has paid service tax under the category of Erection, Commissioner and Installation services. All the other services detailed above and shown in the table are included in the definition of input service. They have been used by the appellant for providing output service as explained by the learned consultant. Therefore, I find that appellant is eligible for refund of the amount shown in the table except for the sum of Rs. 4,999/-.
7. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is partly allowed in above terms with consequential reliefs, if any.