CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2 Service Tax Appeal No.20142 of 2022 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.277 to 280/2021 dated 02.11.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Bangalore.]

M/s. Informatica Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Appellant(s)

No.66/1, Bagamane Commerz 02, Bagamane Tech Park, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore-560 093.

VERSUS The Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru East Respondent(s)

BMTC Building, Old Airport Road, Domlur, Bangalore-560071.

WITH

1. Service Tax Appeal No.20143 of 2022 (M/s. Informatica Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax)

2. Service Tax Appeal No.20144 of 2022 (M/s. Informatica Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax)

3. Service Tax Appeal No.20145 of 2022 (M/s. Informatica Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax)

4. Service Tax Appeal No.20146 of 2022 (M/s. Informatica Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax)

5. Service Tax Appeal No.20147 of 2022 (M/s. Informatica Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax)

6. Service Tax Appeal No.20148 of 2022 (M/s. Informatica Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax)

[All appeals arising out of common Order-in-Appeal No.277 to 280/2021 dated 02.11.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Bangalore]

APPEARANCE:

Mr. Sumeet Khuran, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant.

Mr. Rajashekar B.N.N, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. P. A. AUGUSTIAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Final Order No. 21626 - 21632 / 2025 DATE OF HEARING: 22.07.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 22.07.2025 PER : R. BHAGYA DEVI These appeals are filed by the appellant M/s. Informatica Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., against common Order-in-Appeal No. 277-280/2021 dated 02.11.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Bangalore.

2. The appellant is basically providing Information Technology Software Services (ITSS) and various other services and are availing cenvat credit on the input services used in the above output services. During the period of dispute, refund claims were filed and the original authority partly sanctioned the refund and partly rejected their refund claims. On rejection of refund claims, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order upheld the rejection on various grounds. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is in appeal before us.

3. The Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant submits that they are into Software Development Services and render Customer Support Service and Marketing and Sale Support Service to Informatica USA. Since, there services fall under export of services, they had filed refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012. It is submitted that their services do not fall under the definition of ‘intermediate services’ as held in the impugned order and hence, the question of rejection of refund does not arise.

3.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected some of the refunds on the ground of nexus and on this issue they rely on the decisions of Deolitte Tax Services India Pvt. Ltd. 2008-

TOIL -629 (Tri.), ABB Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2009 (21) STT 77 (Tri.)

and KPMG Vs. CCE. New Delhi 2014 (33) STR 96

4. The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

5. Heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund claims on the following grounds.

(i) The export services are in the nature of intermediary services.

(ii) The FIRC’s are not in order.

(iii) Some of the services have no nexus with the input services

6. Let’s examine the above on individual issues.

(i) The export services are in the nature of intermediary services.

The Commissioner in the impugned order based on the service agreement dated 02.05.2003