Rebate of Swachh Bharat Cess on Export Services Permissible Even Without CENVAT Credit Mechanism: CESTAT [Read Order]

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, is a company engaged in providing business process outsourcing and IT-enabled services to overseas clients. The company filed rebate claims for Swachh Bharat Cess paid on input services used to export output services under Notification No. 39/2012-ST. The original authority allowed most of the rebate but rejected a portion on the grounds that certain services had insufficient nexus with the exported output services.

Step by Step Guidance for Tax Audit & E-filing, Click Here

The department filed an appeal challenging the rebate allowed, while the appellant filed a cross-appeal against the partial rejection. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case for re-examination of several issues including the nature of input services, limitation, applicability of the rebate notification, and whether the services constituted intermediary services.

The appellant's counsel argued that all rebate claims were filed on time and supported by proper documentation. They explained that the issue of export status and eligibility for rebate had already been settled in the appellant’s favor by earlier CESTAT orders. They further argued that SBC, although not eligible for CENVAT credit, was still eligible for rebate under Rule 6A since it was paid on input services used for exports. The counsel cited the Delhi High Court ruling in ExxonMobil Services to support the claim that SBC can be refunded even though it is not part of the CENVAT chain.

The revenue counsel argued that the matter required re-examination and that several legal and factual aspects were not properly verified by the original authority. They raised additional grounds, including questioning the classification of services as exports and suggesting the services could fall under the intermediary category.

The single-member bench comprising Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) disagreed with the revenue’s arguments. The tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had already addressed the issues in detail and found the services to be exports under Rule 6A. It also found that the appellant had not availed CENVAT credit on SBC and that SBC paid on input services used for export was rebateable, as per established law. The tribunal found that the remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unnecessary and failed to consider the binding precedent in the appellant’s favor.

The tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to full rebate of SBC and restored the original order, setting aside the remand. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates