CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 51892 of 2015 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 28/ST/APPEAL-II/SM/GGN/2014-15 dated

17.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Service Tax, Gurgaon]

M/s Genpact India Private Limited ……Appellant GE Towers, Sector 53, DLF City, Phase V, Gurugram, Haryana 122002 VERSUS Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-IV ……Respondent Plot No. 36-37, Sector 32, Gurugram, Haryana 122001 APPEARANCE:

Shri Prasad Paranjape and Shri Aditya Joglekar, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Aniram Meena and Shri Shantanu Kumar Meena, 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. 60149/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 16.10.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 13.02.2026 S. S. GARG :

The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original dated 12.05.2014 by upholding the rejection of refund; the details of refund rejected are given herein below in tabular form:

Sr. Grounds Amount (Rs.)

No.

1. Alleged absence of Nexus 99,18,299/- 2. Input Service invoices not bearing Service Tax 1,57,753/-

Registration Number

3. Input Service invoices not bearing PAN based 3,42,308/-

Service Tax Registration Number

4. Input Service invoices not issued on the registered 2,30,241/-

premises Total 1,06,48,601/-

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant are primarily involved in the provision of various back-end services in the nature of call centre services, back office management, IT help- desk services, collectively called as "BPO Services". The Appellant have entered into a Master Services Sub-Contracting Agreement with Genpact International, Hungary Branch located outside India. Majority of the services provided by the Appellant are exported outside India on behalf of its parent entity located outside India and some portion of services are provided directly to the customers located in India. The Appellant have classified their services under taxable category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' under Section 65(1) read with Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute with respect to the classification adopted by the Appellant as also with respect to the services provided by the Appellant to their overseas entity qualifying as export under Export of Services Rules, 2005. Since majority of the services rendered by the Appellant qualify as export, the CENVAT credit availed by the Appellant on various input services remained unutilized and in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, the Appellant filed refund claim of such unutilized credit. No objection was raised by the department with respect to eligibility of such CENVAT credit when availed and which remained unutilized due to export nature of majority of output services provided by the Appellant. The Appellant filed refund claim which was partly allowed and partly rejected by the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 12.05.2014. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, to the extent refund was denied, the Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, has upheld the rejection of the refund. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard both the sides and perused the material on records.

4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law, and binding judicial precedents including the decision of this Tribunal in Appellant’s own case [vide Final Order No. 60766-

60769/2025 dated 09.07.2025].

4.1 The learned Counsel further submits that all the input services, for which refund has been rejected, are used by the Appellant for prov