Custom, Excise & Service Tax TribunalGoodrich Aerospace Services Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 27 January, 2017CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE


Appeal(s) Involved:

E/27243 to 27246/2013-SM 



[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 194-197/2013 dated 18/04/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE-I( Appeal) ]

Goodrich Aerospace Services Pvt. Ltd
No.14/1 * 15/1, Maurthi Industrial Estate, Phase II, Hoody Village, Whitefield Road,
BANGALORE - 560048
KARNATAKA 
Appellant(s)




Versus



Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I 
POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE  560 001.
KARNATAKA
Respondent(s)Appearance:Shri Sahilendra.S, CA
For the appellant
Dr. Ezhilmathi, AR
For the respondent

Date of Hearing: 27/01/2017

Date of Decision: 27/01/2017

CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No.    20142-20145 / 2017 

Per : S.S GARG 

     
           The present four appeals have been filed by the appellant against the common impugned order dated 18.4.2013 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has partly allowed the appeals of the appellant and allowed the refund in respect of few input services and held that appellants are not eligible for refund of unutilized service tax credit in respect of banking and financial services; cleaning activity; consulting engineering; outdoor catering, air travel agents, printer rental charges, reinforcement sprips lab charges, projector hire charges business auxiliary service, management consultancy. The various refund claims filed by the appellants are shown in the table below:
Appeal No.
Period
Refund Amount
E/27243/2013
Jan.  Dec. 08
  Rs.27,46,468/-E/27244/2013
Apr.  Jun. 09
Rs.4,27,665/-E/27245/2013
Jul.  Sep. 09
Rs.3,89,398/-E/27246/2013
Jn.  Mar. 09
Rs.52,47,873/-2.		Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is primarily engaged in the manufacture of aircraft components and rendering engineering design services using information technology software. The manufacturing portions are carried out from 100% EOU and the engineering design services are rendered from a unit registered under the Software Technology Park of India. Accordingly, the appellant has obtained registration under theCentral Excise Actfor EOU unit and underFinance Actprimarily for the STP unit. The goods manufactured and engineering design services rendered are exported outside India. In the course of manufacture of aircraft parts and rendering engineering design services, appellant consumed various input services and they are unable to utilize the credit of input services availed under the CENVAT Credit Rules, therefore they have preferred refund claims for different periods as shown in the table with the Customs Department for the manufacturing division and with the service tax authorities for engineering designs services. After following the due process, the Assistant Commissioner vide different Orders-in-Original rejected the refund claims primarily on the ground that the services on which refund is claimed are related to business expenses and are not used in the manufacture of export of goods. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A), and the Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 18.4.2013 allowed the appeals in respect of certain services and rejected the appeals with respect to few other services on the ground that there is no nexus between the input services and the manufacturing of goods exported. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the present appeals.3.		The learned consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the refund on few input services on lack of nexus is not sustainable in law and is against the correct interpretation of input service definition as contained in Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 and also against the various decisions rendered by the higher judicial fora where all the services have been specifically held to be input services. The definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(l) is reproduced herein below.(l) "input service" means any service,-(i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service; or(ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto the place of removal,

and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and 
training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal;3.1		He further submitted that during the relevant period, the definition of input service has been given wide interpretation by various courts.In the case ofCCE vs. Ultratech Cementsreported in 2010-TIOL-745-CESTAT-MUM, the Bombay High Court held that the definition of input service is very wide and not only covers services used directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products but also includes other services which have direct nexus with the manufacture of final products. With regard to each service, the learned consultant has given the usage of the said services along with case laws to show that the said service fall in the definition of input service and has actually been used for rendering export services as well as for manufacturing of the goods exported.Services
Relied upon case laws
Banking and Financial Services
M/s.Semco Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune: 2012 (276) ELT 94 (Tri.-Mum.)
Cleaning Activity Services
Heartland Bangalore Transcription Ser.(P) Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore: 2011 (21) STR 430 (Tri.-Bang.)Consulting Engineer Services
Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur: 2013 (32) STR 532 (Bom.)Management or Business Consultant Service
Castrol India Ltd. vs. CCE, Vapi: 2013 (291) ELT 469 (Tri.-Ahmd.)
Outdoor Catering Service
Utopia India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore: 2011 (23) STR 25 (Tri.-Bang.)CCE, Meerut vs. Hindustan Cocacola Beverages Ltd.: 2011 (274) ELT 196 (Tri.-Del.)Commercial orIndustrial Construction Services
Suzuki Motorcycle (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-III: 2011 (267) ELT 216 (Tri.-Del.)stay grantedCCE, Delhi vs. Madhusudan Auto Ltd.: 2015 (40) STR 732 (Tri.-Del.)4.		On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order.5.		After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the judgments cited at bar, I am of the considered opinion that the issues are squarely covered in favour of the appellant by various decisions cited supra. Therefore, I set aside the impugned and allow the appeals of the appellant subject to verification by the original authority.(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced 
in Open Court on 27/01/2017.)
	



S.S GARG
JUDICIAL MEMBER


rv6