M/s. Cenza Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
Relying on Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. HCL Technologies reported in 2015 (37) S.T.R. 716 (All.) CESTAT allowed Cenvat credit on legal consultancy services. in HCL technologies it was held that “6. As regards Consultancy Services, these were comprised of the payment of invoices of the charges involved in relation to the filing of the tax return in the US. The Commissioner held that the service was governed by the definition of “input service”. The second related to Legal Consultancy Services which have also been held to fulfill the definition of the expression “input service”. Both are admissible.”
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Software Technology Park (STP) duly registered and engaged in the exportation of online information and database access/retrieval services and that there is no dispute as to the fact that the appellant is engaged in the export of online information and database access services. The appellant had filed two refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of the period from October 2016 to December 2016 and January 2017 to March 2017.
2. The Adjudicating Authority passed two Orders-in-Original bearing Nos. 40/2018 (R) and 41/2018 (R) dated 26.07.2018 partly allowing the claim, against which the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai. After considering the plea of the assessee, the First Appellate Authority vide the impugned Order Nos. 563 and 564/2018 (CTA-II) dated 10.12.2018 rejected the appeals. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the above appeals.
3. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri. Karthik Sundaram, Ld. Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri. B. Balamurugan, Ld. AR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue.
4.1 Shri. Karthik Sundaram, Ld. Advocate, contended that the issue involved in this case is no more res integra as the same has been considered and allowed in favour of the taxpayer in a number of cases by various judicial fora. He also relied on the following decisions to buttress his arguments :
(i) M/s. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. – 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.);
(ii) C.E. Vs. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. – 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom.);
(iii) M/s. Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. – 2017 (48) S.T.R. 137 (Tri. – Chennai);
(iv)P M/s. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. – 2017 (52) S.T.R. 63 (Tri. – Chennai);
(v) C.E., Coimbatore Vs. M/s. Pricol – 2018 (16) G.S.T.L. 187 (Mad.);
(vi) M/s. Cenza Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.S.T. – 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 150 (Tri. – Chennai);
(vii) C.E. Vs. M/s. Intimate Fashions India (P) Ltd. – 2017 (7) G.S.T.L. 192 (Mad.);
(viii) M/s. One Advertising & Communication Services Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Ahmedabad – 2012 (27) S.T.R. 344 (Tri. – Ahmd.);
(ix) C.E., Guntur Vs. M/s. CCL Products (I) Ltd. – 2012 (277) E.L.T. 177 (Tri. – Bang.);
(x) C.E., Visakhapatnam Vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills – 2010 (254) E.L.T. 354 (Tri. – Bang.)
(xi) C.E. Vs. M/s. HCL Technologies Ltd. – 2016 (42) S.T.R. 48 (Tri. – Del.);
(xii) C.E. Vs. M/s. HCL Technologies – 2015 (37) S.T.R. 716 (All.);
4.2 He further contended that an amount of Rs. 2,00,775/- had not at all been considered for refund although the same was specifically claimed in the appellant’s refund application in Form-A; that the appellant having debited the above amount before claiming the refund in terms of Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012, the Revenue should be directed to consider the above and grant refund.
5. Per contra, Shri. B. Balamurugan, Ld. AR, supported the findings of the lower authorities, but however, was fair enough to point out that the authorities below have not considered the claim of the appellant with regard to the refund of Rs. 2,00,775/-.
6. I have considered the rival contentions, perused the documents placed on record as well as the orders of lower authorities and have also gone through the orders/judgements relied on by the Ld. Advocate.
7. I find the assertion of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant to be correct as the above issue has been considered and laid to rest by various judicial fora. The common issue in both these appeals relate to the claim for refund of Service Tax credit in respect of the following heads :
