Guardian India Operations Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Chandigarh)
The appeal before the Chandigarh Bench of the CESTAT concerned rejection of a refund claim by Guardian India Operations Pvt Ltd, a 100% EOU engaged in providing Information Technology Software Service (ITSS) and Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) to clients located outside India. The appellant had received various input services, including Renting of Immovable Property Service, Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service, Telecom Service, Management Maintenance or Repair Service and Facility Management Service, and had paid service tax on such services. For the period October 2016 to June 2017, the appellant accumulated CENVAT credit of Rs.3,00,68,912/- which remained unutilized because the appellant was a 100% EOU. A refund claim was filed on 01.03.2018 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012.
The original authority rejected the entire claim and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected Rs.1,67,04,086/- relating to Work Contract Service on the ground that the services were not covered by the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A further amount of Rs.93,892/- relating to invoices issued before the ST-2 certificate was rejected on the ground that the appellant had not provided output service during that period. The entire refund claim of Rs.2,92,85,930/- was also rejected on the ground that, being located in an SEZ, the appellant ought to have claimed refund under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 rather than under Rule 5 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012. The appellant contended that the construction-related services were in fact used for modernization, renovation and repair of its leased office and therefore fell within the definition of input service.
