Credit Suisse Services India Pvt. Ltd vs Cce Pune Iii

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II

APPEAL NO. ST/85747/13

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. V2PI/123/ST/2012 dated 23.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune I.)

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Yes of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

Credit Suisse Services India Pvt. Ltd.

Appellant

Versus

CCE Pune III

Respondent

Appearance

None for Appellant Shri P.K. Das, Dy Commissioner (A.R.) for Respondents

CORAM:

Shri P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 02.01.2015 Date of Decision : 02.01.2015

ORDER NO.

Per P.S.Pruthi The appellant is in appeal against impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) in which the Commissioner agreed with the order of the Asst. Commissioner in rejecting the refund claim filed by the appellant amounting to Rs.9,72,169/- for the period June 2009 to September 2009.

2. The facts are that the appellant is an unit in SEZ and engaged in providing export IT services and business support services. For rendering such services various input services such as Management Consultancy services, Chartered Accountancy Service and IT software services are used as input services. All these services are duly approved by the Development Commissioner of the SEZ as eligible input services. The appellant claimed refund of service tax paid on the input services received by them in terms of provisions of Notification No. 9/2009 dated 03.05.2009 as amended by Notification 15/2009-ST dated 20.05.2009. Since the amended Notification provided for refund only in those cases where the services were not wholly consumed within the SEZ, the authorities below rejected the refund claim.

3. Heard both sides and considered the submissions.

4. The Government has two schemes for granting exemption to services provided to SEZ Units where the services are wholly consumed within the SEZ the services being provided from outside are exempted from payment of service tax. Where these services were not wholly consumed within the SEZ, Notification 9/2009 read with Notification 15/2009 provided that the service receiver in the SEZ is eligible for refund of the tax paid on the input services. The matter is settled by the decisions of the Tribunal to the effect that even where the services are wholly consumed within SEZ, the Unit will be eligible for refund when tax has already been paid by the service provider. These decisions have been considered in the appellants own case vide this Tribunals Order No. A/889-893/13/CSTB/C-I dated 28.3.2013 which is in their favour.

4.1 The appellant concedes that an amount of Rs.3,431/- which was rejected on the ground that the invoices were not submitted along with the refund claim is not being pressed upon.

5. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief except for the amount of Rs.3,431/-.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.S.Pruthi) Member (Technical) nsk ??

??

??

??

3