Facts:
The respondents were exporting 100% of its services and had filed a refund claim under Notification 05/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. However, they had no service tax registration while receiving, using and exporting the input services. The appellants contested that the lower authorities did not look into the question of limitation and Commissioner (Appeals) did not verify the nexus of input services with the output services.
It was argued that 100% of its services were exported and all records established that input services were used for exporting services.
Held:
As per the said Notification, the service provider had to submit an application indicating the registered premises from which services were exported. Relying on the decision of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (27) SR 134 (Kar.), the Tribunal held that it was just a procedural formality in order to claim refund and it was not a substantial condition for grant of refund.
The adjudicating authority had made a bland statement that input services were not used to provide output services without any support and logic which shows its non-application of mind. In view of Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision in case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.), it was held that all input services were used for providing export services.
The case was remanded back for the limited purpose of verification that input services were used for providing export services, the department was directed to decide the case within 3 months from the receipt of order.