Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
The CESTAT Chennai decided two appeals arising from common facts concerning partial rejection of refund claims filed by the appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) registered under the Software Technology Park of India (STPI) and engaged in providing Business Auxiliary Services. The appeals challenged Orders in Appeal dated 30.03.2015, which upheld Orders-in-Original partially rejecting refund claims of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the periods April 2010 to September 2010 and October 2010 to December 2010.
The appellant had claimed refund of unutilized input service credit supported by the prescribed documents. The Adjudicating Authority rejected credit relating to rent-a-cab services, insurance, auxiliary services and architectural services, holding that these did not qualify as input services. Credit was also disallowed on the ground that certain input service invoices had not been produced. While determining the refund under Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006, the Adjudicating Authority excluded turnover relating to SEZ operations and domestic operations from export turnover, resulting in partial rejection of the refund claim. The Appellate Authority upheld these findings, observing that the appellant had not established maintenance of separate accounts for the SEZ and STPI units as contemplated under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
