B.S.V. Murthy, J.
1. In all these appeals filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is common and therefore all the appeals are taken up together and a common order is being passed. The matter was heard for quite some time on 8.5.2014 and it was agreed that both the Revenue as well as the respondents will submit service-wise details and their classification. Accordingly the matter was heard once again today.
2. The issue involved in all these cases is accumulated CENVAT credit in respect of input services utilized for output services which are exported. The credit has been denied on the ground that original authority thought that the output services were not at all taxable and therefore input service credits could not have been taken at all. According to Revenue output service was classifiable under Information Technology Service (ITS) whereas it is claimed by the respondents that such services are classifiable under Business Support Service (BSS) or Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). This claim of the respondents/assessee was not at all made before the original authority and it was claimed in some cases before Commissioner (A) and also in some cases such a claim has been made before us. In any case, since after hearing both the sides on two days, we came to the conclusion that the matters are required to be remanded to the original authority, we consider it appropriate that the respondents are allowed to make claims afresh as regards classification of output services.
3. As regards the credit on input services, the original adjudicating authority had not at all examined the eligibility of the input services in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules. Now that the matter is remanded to the original authority, besides examining the classification claims of the respondents/assessee for the output services, he would be required to examine the claims in respect of input services also in detail.
4. On going through the records and hearing both sides, what we found was that the detailed submissions made in respect of different services rendered by the respondents/assessee have not been discussed in detail at all. Even where there has been discussion, the discussions are not sufficient and mostly general in nature. In our opinion, this defect can be rectified only by the respondents/assessee submitting details afresh and fresh consideration of each such detail by the original authority. Learned counsels for the assessees agree that they would submit details of each type of services rendered, the amount involved and its classification according to them and the amount involved to the refund sanctioning authority who should render his observation in respect of each such submission in terms of law, precedent decisions of judicial authority and circulars issued by the Board from time to time. Since the refund claims had been rejected on the ground that output services were a non-taxable service and the eligibility for the credit had not been examined, this aspect also will have to be considered in detail by the original adjudicating authority. Further, it was also submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases for the subsequent periods, the matters were remanded by the Commissioner (A) and in several cases refunds have been sanctioned in respect of very same input services used in respect of very same output services also. It is made clear that in such cases, where the Revenue has not filed appeal and where judicial precedents are available, the original adjudicating authority should take those details into account and arrive at a proper conclusion in accordance with law.
5. There were several legal submissions made by the learned special consultant on behalf of the Revenue. It was also requested by both the sides that some general guidelines should be laid down by this Tribunal while remanding the matter. We consider that this request is appropriate and should be considered. Two other submissions on behalf of the respondent was that BAS and BSS covered almost all the services rendered on behalf of the business/commercial concern to their customers as well as to the commercial or business concern by the assessees. The learned special consultant submitted that this is not at all correct. He submitted that the classification of various services rendered by the assessees in these cases are generally found to be not classifiable according to Clauses (i) (ii),(iv) and (v) of Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994. He submitted that as per clause (iii) of the Act, any customer care service provided on behalf of the client; and as per clause (vi) any services provided on behalf of the client; and as per clause (vii) any service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified above are taxable under BAS. No serious objection was raised to this submission. Therefore, the original adjudicating authority may proceed on this basis for classification of the output services under BAS. Coming to the BSS, the submission on behalf of the assessees was that the service covers almost all services which are provided to a client which supports business or commerce. It would be appropriate to reproduce the definition of support services of business or commercebefore proceeding to discuss the same. support services of business or commercemeans services provided in relation to business or commerce and includes evaluation of prospective customers, telemarketing, processing of purchase orders and fulfillment services, information and tracking of delivery schedules, managing distribution and logistics, customer relationship management services, accounting and processing of transactions, 6[Operational or administrative assistance in any manner], formulation of customer service and pricing policies, infrastructural support services and other transaction processing.
It was explained by the learned special consultant that in this case the word includes has not been used to expand the definition of support service of business or commerce. This is because the meaning itself is very broad and therefore it may not be correct to say that the word includes as in the normal cases expands the definition here. If the meaning given for support service of business or commerce is taken as very broad and if there was no intention to restrict the same, it would have been sufficient to say that support service of business or commerce means services provided in relation to business or commerce. He also submitted that support service of business or commerce is not found in trade parlance and therefore it is a coined expression. While looking at the meaning, it cannot be said that support service of commerce or business covers all services provided in relation to business or commerce. We are inclined to agree with this view. While coming to the conclusion we take note of the fact that on 8.4.2011 the operational processes for marketing was added by Finance Act, 2011 and if the meaning was to cover almost all services, there was no need to add to the definition subsequently. In fact, the explanation given below in the definition explaining what is infrastructural support service would also support the view that in all types of services provided in relation to business or commerce can be considered as support service of business or commerce may not be correct. In view of the above, we consider that it would be necessary for the original adjudicating authority to consider each service rendered by the assessees herein as to whether they fall under ITS or BAS or BSS or any other service which appellant may choose to make a claim at the time of fresh adjudication.
6. Needless to say that as already mentioned earlier, the original adjudicating authority will have to examine the admissibility of CENVAT credit on input services wherever they are relatable to the taxable services. All the counsels for the assessees agree that they would submit the details expeditiously to the original adjudicating authority and requested that since the matters are pending for long time and relates to refund claims, there should be a specific time limit fixed by the Tribunal while passing the order. We consider the request to be reasonable and accordingly original adjudicating authority is requested to ensure that adjudication process is completed within three months of submission of all the details by the respondents/assessees hereinabove. If the data furnished by the assessees is insufficient or inadequate, the request for rectification with specific details of inadequacy should be given to the assessees within a period of 15 days of receipt of submissions by the original adjudicating authority. All the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decisions in accordance with the observations made hereinabove.
7. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as by the assessee-appellants are disposed of by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority.