Olam Information Services Private Limited Vs Commissioner of GST And Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, allowed the appeal filed by a service provider engaged in Online Information and Database Access/Retrieval Services for clients located outside India against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld partial denial of refund of unutilized CENVAT credit.
The appellant had filed two refund applications under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized CENVAT credit relating to export of services. The claims covered the periods October 2012 to December 2012 for ₹28,22,196 and January 2013 to March 2013 for ₹27,08,958. The adjudicating authority partly allowed the claims but disallowed certain amounts. Refund relating to air travel agent services, accommodation, hotel and banking services was rejected on the ground that such input services were not related to the output services. Certain amounts were also rejected on limitation. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) restored the amounts rejected on limitation but upheld rejection of refund relating to rent-a-cab, restaurant, accommodation, business support, travel and travel agent services on the ground that no nexus existed between the input services and the exported output services.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant contended that the finding that the disputed services were not used for rendering output services was factually incorrect. It also submitted that telecommunication and insurance service invoices, stated to be missing by the authorities, had in fact been furnished along with the refund application, as demonstrated through the statement annexed to the appeal papers. According to the appellant, all the disputed services had been availed for providing the exported output services. The appellant also relied upon the definition of “input service” under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as amended with effect from 01.04.2011, and argued that the refund could not be denied in view of the scope of the definition.
