CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 60446 of 2020 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 20-21/ST/CGST-Appeal-Gurugram/SG/2020-

21 dated 01.07.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Gurugram]

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd ……Appellant Plot No. 408, Udyog Vihar, Phase-III, Gurugram, Haryana VERSUS Commissioner of Central Goods & Service ……Respondent Tax, Gurugram Plot No. 36-37, Sector 32, Gurugram, Haryana APPEARANCE:

Shri Udyan Choksi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Aniram Meena and Shri Aneesh Dewan, Authorized Representatives for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60618/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 27.02.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 23.06.2025 S. S. GARG :

The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram, vide which the learned Commissioner has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-consideration. The impugned order has been passed in relation to cross appeals, one appeal filed by the appellant against rejecting Swachh Bharat Cess (‘SBC’) rebate of an amount of Rs.20,80,069/- and another appeal filed by the department contesting the original order to the extent it allowed a rebate of Rs.1,27,01,532/-.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant are engaged in IT enabled services including BPO services, call centre and contact centre services, falling under the categories of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ and ‘Business Support Services’ to companies located outside India. As per the appellant, these services qualify as “Export of Services” per Rule 6A of the erstwhile Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant filed rebate claims for Swachh Bharat Cess (‘SBC’) paid on input services used in exporting output services in accordance with Notification No. 39/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended by Notification No. 03/2016-ST dated 03.02.2016 for different periods amounting to Rs.1,47,81,600/-. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 03.10.2019, sanctioned a rebate of Rs.1,27,01,532/- while rejecting Rs.20,80,069/- for 13 services citing lack of adequate justification on nexus with the exported output services.

2.1 Aggrieved by the partial rejection vide Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals)

seeking rebate for :

(i) Air Travel Agent Services: Rs.2,75,887/-;

(ii) Event Management Services: Rs.90,142/-;

(iii) Outdoor Catering Services: Rs.6,25,134/-;

(iv) Rent-A-Cab Services: Rs.12,64,241/- and (v) Miscellaneous services: Rs.1,02,556/-.

2.2 The department also filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) contesting the entire sanctioned rebate on the following grounds:

(a) The department contended that Cenvat Credit was availed on inputs/input services for which rebate was claimed, violating para

2(e) of the notification;

(b) The rebate claim for February 2016 to March 2016, filed on

02.02.2017, was time-barred;

(c) The Order-in-Original allegedly failed to examine whether the appellant fell within the scope of 'intermediary services’.

2.3 In response to department’s appeal, the appellant filed Cross Objections on 02.03 2020, arguing that the Order-in-Original had already examined and ruled in favour of the appellant on the issues of Cenvat credit and time limitation. It was further argued that the issue of intermediary services was newly raised in appeal, despite the Order-in-Original confirming the export of services.

2.4 After following the due process, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order dated 01.07.2020, has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-

examination on the following grounds:

(A) The Order-in-Original allegedly did not examine the applicability of Notification No. 39/2012-ST;

(B) The issue of limitation was stated as