Case Details: Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai (2026) 41 Centax 367 (Tri.-Mad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- S/Shri Ajayan T.V., Member (J) & M. Ajit Kumar, Member (T)
- Shri Joseph Prabhakar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
- Shri Anoop Singh, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) under the Software Technology Park of India (STPI), was registered for providing Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of unutilised CENVAT credit, including credit availed on rent-a-cab service, insurance service, auxiliary service and architectural service. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim in respect of the said services on the ground that they did not qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The assessee submitted that the said services were input services for its business activities. The matter was placed before the CESTAT.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the definition of ‘input service’ under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, during the relevant period had a wide ambit and included ‘activities relating to business’. The Tribunal observed that the department had not raised any prior objection that the impugned services had not been availed for accomplishing the assessee’s business purpose. It further observed that the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs), export invoices, input invoices and the Chartered Accountant’s certificate furnished by the assessee had not been controverted by the department. The Tribunal, therefore, held that rent-a-cab service, insurance service, auxiliary service and architectural service were eligible input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
List of Cases Cited
- Aeigis Limited v. Commissioner — 2014-TIOL-1970-CESTAT-BANG — Referred [Para 5]
- Commissioner v Stanzen Toyotetsu India [P) Ltd — 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 5]
- Commissioner v Ultratech Cement Ltd — 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bombay) = 2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.) — Relied on [Para 18]
- Commissioner v. Graphite India Limited — 2012 (27) STR 130 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 5]
- Commissioner v. Tata Auto Compystems Ltd. — 2012 (27) STR 338 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 5]
- Commissioner v. Tiger Steel Engineering (India) [P.) Ltd. — 2010 (259) E.L.T. 375 (Tri. – Mumbai) — Distinguished [Paras 15, 28]
- Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2010 (17) S.T.R. 54 (Tri.-Bang) — Referred [Para 5]
- Infosys Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (37) S.T.R. 862 (Tri. – Bang.) — Referred [Para 5]
- Johnson Lifts Pvt Ltd v. Asst Commissioner — 2020 (374) E.L.T. 519 (Mad.) — Relied on [Paras 14, 19]
- K.P.M.G. v. Commissioner — 2014 (33) S.T.R. 96 (Tri.-Del) — Referred [Para 5]
- P.P. Products Ltd v Commissioner — 2019 (367) E.L.T. 707 (Mad.) — Relied on [Paras 14, 19]
- Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited v. Commissioner — 2013 (32) S.T.R. 435 (Tri. – Chennai) — Referred [Para 5]
- Tiger Steel Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India — (2025) 26 Centax 125 (Bom) — Relied on [Para 28]
List of Notifications Cited
Notification No. 5/2006 C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006 [Paras 4, 24]
