Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner, Gst & Central … vs M/S. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd on 29 January, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI E/Misc./41198/2017 & E/CO/49/2010 & E/352/2010 E/Misc./41021/2017 & E/100/2011 E/CO/14 & 15/2011 and E/187 & 188/2011 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 33/2010 dated 12.3.2010; Order-in-Appeal No. 112/2010 dated 13.12.2010 and Order-in-Appeal No. 113 &114/2010dated 20.12.2010 all passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Chennai) Commissioner, GST & Central Excise Chennai South Commissionerate Chennai Appellant Vs. M/s. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant
Shri P.R. Renganathan, Advocate for the Respondent
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision: 29.01.2018
Final Order Nos. 40228-40231 / 2018
Per B. Ravichandran,
These four appeals are by Revenue against various impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), LTU, Chennai. The impugned orders allowed benefit of exemption by way of refund in terms of Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) r/w Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The respondents are engaged in providing certain services in terms of the agreement with foreign clients. They are approved unit in Software Technology Park India, Chennai. Since the services were exported and they have used various input services on which service tax has been paid, they have filed a claim for refund of these input services. The same was rejected by the original authority on the ground that these services cannot be considered as either consulting engineers service or design service during the relevant period. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the respondents holding that these services were specifically covered under designing services and the respondents are eligible for refunds. The Revenue contested the said orders stating that these are not designing service and mere conversion of 2D image to 3D drawing will not make it a designing work.
2. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
3. At the outset, both sides agree that for the very same respondent, for the earlier periods, on the same dispute, the matter came up before the Tribunal. The case was decided as reported in 2011 (24) STR 74 (Tri. Chennai). In the said order, the Tribunal held that the services rendered by the respondents were appropriately to be considered under consulting engineers service. The period covered in the said appeal was upto September 2007. Though in the present proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) held the classification as design services, we note that as the very same dispute stands settled by the Tribunal which covered part of the period when design service was available for tax with effect from 1.6.2007, following the ratio and finding of the Tribunal, we hold that the respondents are entitled for the refund for taxable services exported by them. We note that the whole proceeding against the respondent was with reference to denial of refund on the issue of classification only. The Revenue initiated such proceedings on the ground that there is no taxable service exported by the respondent. Following the decision of the Tribunal in the respondents own case, we are holding that the respondents did export taxable service, they are eligible for refund as claimed under Rule 5. We note that in the earlier proceedings also the Tribunal remanded the matter for other verifications like documents, quantification of such refund. Though the respondents submitted that the original proceedings did not raise these issues, we note that sanction of refund would necessarily involve verification of documents along with required details.
4. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we find that the appeals presently filed by the Revenue are without merit. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.
5. The miscellaneous application filed for change of cause title of the name of the appellant to Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate is allowed. The cross-objections filed by the respondent are disposed of accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (B. RAVICHANDRAN) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Rex 3