Safran Engineering Services India Pvt ... vs Commissioner Of Service Tax ...
- CitationAppeal No. 83-2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The eligibility of an input service for refund turns on whether that input service has been used in providing the output service; where the appellant shows that the management or business consultancy service received from abroad was used for the efficient execution of its projects and performance of its output services, a sufficient nexus exists between the input service and the output service, and the appellant is entitled to the refund of service tax paid on it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 83-2011 dated 19/04/2011 passed by CST, Bangalore]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
SAFRAN ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PVT TLD CSRIE, NO.32, GRAPE GARDEN, 17TH H MAIN ROAD, VI BLOCK, KORMANGALA BANGALORE 560 095 Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Service Tax BANGALORE-SERVICE TAX NULL 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING,above BMTC BUS STAND,DOMLUR BANGALORE, - 560071 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Sarwan Kumar, CA For the Appellant
Shri Mohd. Yusuf, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 19/03/2015
Date of Decision: 19/03/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20809 / 2015
Per : B.S.V. MURTHY
The issue involved is eligibility of the appellant for refund of service tax paid on the input service of management or business consultant service received from abroad. The refund claim has been rejected on the ground that there is no nexus between the input service and the output service and it has not been used for providing output service.
2. The learned CA submits that appellant hires management or business consultants to provide advice and consultancy with regard to the efficient execution of projects and effective performance of output services including implementing best practices in carrying out day to day service operations and providing innovative client solutions. Further the appellant avails services of consultants for various customer project related deliverables and compliances.
3. After considering the submissions made above, I consider that the said input service has been used for providing output service and therefore there is nexus and the appellant is eligible for the refund which has been rejected and demanded back. Accordingly the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER
Raja.
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free