SHELL INDIA MARKETS PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER SHELL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal, which has remanded the matter to the revisional authority for fresh disposal and in accordance with law. The assessee, M/s. Shell Technology Private Limited, are registered under the taxable service category of consulting engineering services as per section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994. The assessee is a 100 per cent export oriented unit, engaged in providing consulting engineering services. They filed Cenvat refund claim on January 28, 2008 of Rs. 66,49,805 for the period November, 2006 to March, 2007. In pursuance of the Notification No. 5/2006 CE (NT) dated March 14, 2006 for the unutilized Cenvat credit of service tax which has been paid by them on input services. The claim was based on the ground that all their services were exported to their group companies located outside India and the said activity fall under the definition of "consulting engineering services", which is a taxable service. The claim was scrutinized and found that the claimant has not produced certain documents. Therefore, a show-cause notice was issued on March 10,2008, whereupon the assessee was called upon to show cause why their claim should not be rejected in terms of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The assessee submitted the reply. They explained that the company is engaged in providing engineering design and support services to group companies outside India. The engineering design and support services in the nature of developing high and technical studies, developing solutions that captures the science of technical study and technical modeling and stimulation service in relation to oil fields, refineries and petrochemical installations. All input services received by the assessee are used only in relation to the export of consulting engineering service and in the absence of any other activities being performed by the assessee, the input services cannot be used for any purpose other than in relation to export of taxable services. Therefore they claim Cenvat credit in respect of 20 input services. They also relied on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad IV, Commissionerate, Hyderabad v. Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt. Limited,2008 TIOL 629. They claimed refund of Rs. 66,49,805 of service tax paid on the above input services.

(2.) The revisional authority on due verification held that there is no nexus between the 15 services and the services exported. However, it was found that the assessee is eligible for refund claim in respect of five services. Therefore the claim of the assessee was partially allowed. Aggrieved by the said order rejecting the claim for refund in respect of 15 services, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals II). Out of 15 services, which were the subject-matter of appeal, the appellate authority held that in respect of 10 services they are not directly or indirectly related to export services rendered and there were no concrete evidence given before the original authority and therefore the original authority has correctly rejected the claim to that extent. Accordingly, it also rejected the said claim. However, in respect of five services, holding that they directly or indirectly related to the export services rendered, refund was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order rejecting refund in respect of 10 services, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Revenue also preferred an appeal in respect of five services for which refund was allowed.

(3.) In fact, there were number of appeals where similar question was involved. Therefore the Tribunal clubbed all the appeals and by common order, disposed of the appeals setting aside the order of the Appellate Commissioner and remanded the matter back to the revisional authority, however, without disturbing the refund granted by the revisional authority in respect of five services. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal.