Case Law Details

Case Name : Societe Generale Global Solutions Centre (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore (CESTAT Bangalore)
Appeal Number : Application No. ST/STAY/1044 OF 2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 03/11/2011
Related Assessment Year :


Societe Generale Global Solutions Centre (P.) Ltd.


Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore

STAY ORDER NO. 1139 OF 2011


APPEAL NO. ST/1667 OF 2011

NOVEMBER 3, 2011


M. Veeraiyan, Technical Member

Heard both sides on the stay petition.

2. The applicant preferred refund claim of Rs. 24,36,191/- under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 05/2006 CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 relating to the period April 2008 to June 2008. Original Authority sanctioned refund of Rs. 17,17,447/- and rejected the balance of Rs. 7,18,744/-. (Learned CA submits that they have filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of original authority rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 7,18,744/- and the same is pending). Commissioner in his Order-in-Revision dated 25.03.2011 held that out of Rs. 17,17,447/- sanctioned as refund, a sum of Rs. 13,35,766/- is not admissible and accordingly ordered recovery of the refund sanctioned by the original authority to the extent of Rs. 13,35,766/-.

3. Learned CA submits that the denial of the refund already granted by the original authority is on the ground that two of the services viz. management consultant services and maintenance or repair services (in connection with DG sets) are not input services in relation to the services rendered by them viz. ITSS. He submits that the maintenance of DG sets is essentially and integrally connected to rendering the business and no export of service can take place if there is no uninterrupted power supply and, therefore, the said services should be treated as ‘input services’. Similarly he submits that the management consultant service was utilized for rendering the business with efficiency and it was prerequisite to render the business efficiently especially to cater to the export market and therefore, should be treated as ‘input services’.

4. Learned SDR reiterates the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner in the Order-in-Revision.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions and we are prima facie, in agreement with views expressed by learned CA that the impugned services could be treated as ‘input services’ in respect of services rendered by the appellant. In view of the above, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 13,35,766/- ordered to be recovered by the Order-in-Revision and stay of recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal.


More Under Service Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

September 2021