Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 411

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
P.A. AUGUSTIAN, Judicial Member, R. BHAGYA DEVI, Technical Member
M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering And Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit – Respondent
Service Tax Appeal No. 20242 of 2017|Service Tax Appeal No. 20243 of 2017|Service Tax Appeal No. 20244 of 2017|Service Tax Appeal No. 21076 of 2017|Service Tax Appeal No. 21177 of 2017|Service Tax Appeal No. 21178 of 2017|Service Tax Appeal No. 21179 of 2017|Service Tax Appeal No. 21180 of 2017|Service Tax Appeal No. 21247 of 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain
For the Respondents: Mr. M. A. Jithendra

Refund claims for unutilized CENVAT credit linked to output services must establish clear nexus; errors in computation and documentation shouldn't deny legitimate claims.

Headnote:(A) CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Rule 2(1) - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit of input service - Appellant's claims for refunds on various services denied on the grounds of nexus to output services; partial allowance granted. - Import of services and operations of software units are integral for business performance; nexus must exist for inputs. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

(B) Refund Calculation - Correct method must adhere to prescribed computational formulae; exclusions clarified do not apply universally to all services listed. Previous orders precedent in determining eligibility need reconsideration. (Paras 26, 27, 29)

(C) Procedural Deficiencies - Procedural lapses should not govern refund eligibility; substantive claims upheld despite documentation failure on certain counts if nexus is established. (Paras 20, 28)

PER : P.A. AUGUSTIAN

The issue in the present appeal is regarding refund of unutilized CENVAT credit of input service. Appellant is an 100% Software Oriented Unit and Export of Services as well as providing services of DTA. Appellant had filed nine (9) refund claims on unutilized CENVAT Credit for the period from June 2012 - September 2014 however against claim of Rs.74,92,20,484/- only an amount of Rs.35,88,48,080/- is allowed by the Adjudication Authority. Aggrieved by the said orders, appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) also allowed Rs.25,67,86,392/- and denied refund of Rs.13,35,86,012/-. Aggrieved by said orders present appeals are filed. Details of the appeals are given below:-

2. When the appeals came up hearing, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) for the appellant submits that the considerable part of the claim made by the appellant which is rejected by the Adjudication Authority / Appellate Authority is regarding Business Support Service (BSS) and it is denied on the ground that there is no nexus between the input and output services. The total amount rejected on the Business Support Service (BSS) is Rs.5,92,82,435/-. As regarding Visa Fee and Personnel Baggage, Learned Chartered Account (CA) submits that the appellant has large number of employees for rendering output service and for execution of the project and these employees have to move from one location to another. For movement of such person certain expenses gone by the appellant including visa fee and personnel baggage, translation services etc.

3. Learned Chartered Account (CA) further submits that in appellant's own case for the period from October 2010 - December 2010 said claim was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Order-in-Appeal No. 81/2013 dated 19.03.2013 and said claim was also allowed for the period from April 2011 - June 2011 vide Order-in-Original No. 103R/2013 dated 15.10.2012. As per the said order, credit was allowed on other inputs services including translation, video shooting, photo copying, technical data and voice recording services. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) further submits that the appellant had discharged tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) for import of service and such services has direct nexus with output service. Even as per the report of the monitoring committee of service tax audit held that the input services availed by the appellant are eligible for input services. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) also draws attention to the Final Order No. 21397/2016 dated 13.12.2016 and Final Order No. 23114-23130/2017 dated 08.12.2017 in this regard. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) further submits that the issue is no more res integra and covered by the following decisions:-

i. Megma Design Automation (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2015 (40) S.T.R. 800 (Tri. - Bang.)]

ii. HCL Technologies Ltd Vs. Commissioner Of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Noida [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)]

iii. Castrol India Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (291) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.)]

iv. Kijiji (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Mumbai- I [2013 (32) S.T.R. 661 (Tri. - Mumbai)]

v. Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs. M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM]

4. As regarding General Insurance Services, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that an amount of Rs.2,48,27,198/- is denied on the ground that health insurance for the employees or for personal use. Since it is not related to output services, it is denied. In this regard, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that the credit pertains to travel insurance and employee insurance. Since the travel is carried out exclusively for official purpose and not provided as welfare measure to the employees. It is provided to protect the business interest and appellant is eligible for the credit as claimed.

5. As regarding the claim of Rs.21,57,573/- related to Life Insurance Service

Click Here to Read the rest of this document