Commissioner Misdirected Findings in Export Services Dispute: CESTAT Remands Getz Pharma CENVAT Credit Refund Matter [Read Order]
CESTAT remands Getz Pharma refund matter, holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly shifted export service dispute to intermediary services without SCN
![Commissioner Misdirected Findings in Export Services Dispute: CESTAT Remands Getz Pharma CENVAT Credit Refund Matter [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/CESTAT-Over-Lack-of-Input-output-Nexus-CENVAT-Credit-taxscan.jpg "Commissioner Misdirected Findings in Export Services Dispute: CESTAT Remands Getz Pharma CENVAT Credit Refund Matter [Read Order]")
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the Commissioner (Appeals) misdirected the findings in the export services dispute involving Getz Pharma Research Pvt. Ltd. by shifting the issue from Place of Provision of Services under Rule 4 to Intermediary Services under Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, without proper...
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the Commissioner (Appeals) misdirected the findings in the export services dispute involving Getz Pharma Research Pvt. Ltd. by shifting the issue from Place of Provision of Services under Rule 4 to Intermediary Services under Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, without proper show cause notice.
Getz Pharma had claimed a refund of Rs. 54.82 lakh as accumulated CENVAT credit on inputs and input services used for contract research activities for a foreign client, treating the services as exports under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
The adjudicating authority partially allowed the claims, but the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected them entirely, holding that the appellant acted as an intermediary and that the intellectual property rights were created in India.
Read More: TCS Applicable on Luxury Goods Above ₹10 Lakh from April 22, 2025: CBDT New FAQs
The appellant’s counsel argued that their services qualified as export of services and relied on Tribunal decisions in Sai Life Sciences Ltd. and Advinus Therapeutics Ltd., where similar research services were held to be exports. The revenue countered that the research work conducted in India did not qualify as export and invoked intermediary service provisions.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
The two-member bench comprising C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had exceeded the scope of the original dispute by invoking Rule 9 on intermediary services without it being part of the show cause notice or grounds of appeal.
The tribunal observed that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the creation of intellectual property rights in India lacked legal justification, as there was no evidence that such rights were registered or vested in India under the applicable laws.
Read More: Finance Ministry Raises Customs Tariff Value of Gold [Read Notification]
The tribunal observed that the eligibility for export status must be determined strictly under Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, and Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, along with judicial precedents on the subject. The tribunal ruled that the denial of a refund based on the intermediary services provision was misdirected and procedurally flawed.
The tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
