DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs Bangalore East

ST/20648/2023


CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2

Service Tax Appeal No. 20648 of 2023

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 306/2023 dated 13.06.2023
passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Bangalore.)

M/s. Dell International Services
India Private Limited
(Formerly known as EMC IT Solutions
India Private Limited)
12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Greens,
Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore – 560 071.

Appellant(s)

VERSUS
The Commissioner of Central Tax,
Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax
(Appeals-I
Traffic & Transit Management Centre,
th
BMTC Building, No.9, 4 Floor,
Above BMTC Bus Stand, Domlur,
Old Airport Road,
Bangalore – 560 071.

Respondent(s)
APPEARANCE:

Ms. Preetha Mahadevan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri Maneesh Akhoury, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent
CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 21297 / 2026

DATE OF HEARING: 15.09.2026
DATE OF DECISION: 06.11.2026
PER: R. BHAGYA DEVI

The appellant i.e., EMC IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. now known
as M/s. Dell International Services Pvt. Ltd. were rendering
taxable services under the category of Business Auxiliary
Page 1 of 4

ST/20648/2023

Service, Business Support Service and Information Technology
Services. The appellant filed a rebate claim for the period from
April 2012 to June 2012 in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit
Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.11/2005-ST dated
19/04/2005. The original authority sanctioned part of the
amount and rejected an amount of Rs.45,52,322/- for which the
appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original
authority on the ground that the conditions of the Notification
No.11/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005 were not complied with.
Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

2. The Learned Counsel submitted that the original authority
had recorded that in terms of the Notification No.11/2005-ST
dated 19.04.2005 the appellant had rendered services which
qualified as export services, consideration was received in
convertible foreign exchange and service tax was paid on the
exported services; and hence, the appellant had fulfilled the
conditions, limitations and procedures prescribed under the
above said Notification but rejected the refund/rebate claim on
the ground that the appellant was not eligible for credit on some
of the input services. Therefore, it is her submission that the
Commissioner (Appeals) cannot now reject their refund claim on
the ground that was accepted by the original authority. She
relies on the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of
Textron India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax
Bangalore: 2015 (39) STR 468 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein the
Tribunal had held that while considering a rebate claim of
service tax paid on exported services, the nexus issue cannot be
raised and the credit cannot be denied for which separate
proceedings for denial of credit had to be issued. She also relied
on the decision of Ivy Comtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner
of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Hyderabad:
2016 (42) STR 66 (Tri-Bang) and also the decision in the
case of ANZ Support Services India Private Limited vs.
Page 2 of 4

ST/20648/2023

Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Bangalore: Final
Order No. 20392/2026 dated 09/01/2026.

3. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterating
the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) submits that the
original authority had rejected the refund claim on the ground
that documents were not produced for processing the rebate
claim. It is his submission that an amount of Rs.6,06,027/- was
rejected on the ground that the input invoices did not mention
PAN, valid service tax registration number and correct address
etc; hence, the question of extending input credit on these
invoices cannot be sustained; therefore, the rebate claim to that
extent needs to be rejected. He further submits that from
01.07.2017, certain Acts are repealed and Section 142 of the
CGST Act allows refund of cenvat credit in certain contingencies
as transitional measures. He further submits that, in the instant
case, since the impugned orders are passed after 01.07.2017,
the refund of credit are liable to be processed only under
Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 and since the appellant
has not claimed the refund under Section 142 of the CGST Act,
2017 the same needs to be rejected. He relies on the decision of
this Bench in the case of M/s. Rakcon India Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore: Final Order
No.21416/2023 dated 19.12.2023 wherein the refund was
rejected on similar grounds.

4. Heard both sides. Though the appellant had filed rebate
claim for Rs.1,38,19,578/-, the original authority has considered
only an amount of Rs. 1,04,60,578/- since category-wise details
have not been mentioned; however, observes that all the
conditions of the Notification have been satisfied by the
appellant. The difference between the above amounts i.e.,
Rs.33,59,000/- for non-production of documents has been
rejected, hence the same is to be remanded to enable the
Page 3 of 4

ST/20648/2023

appellant to produce the documents before the original authority
for necessary verification.

5. With regard to the amounts rejected on the question of
nexus of input services with the output services is a settled law
that as long as services have been exported and the appellant
has satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated
19.05.2005, the refund or rebate claim cannot be rejected.;
hence, the same is to be allowed. The original authority has
disallowed cenvat credit of Rs.6,06,027/- on the ground that it
could not be ascertained whether tax in respect of such invoices
has been discharged. This also needs to be verified. Accordingly,
on these two issues it is being remanded for necessary
verification of documents. Needless to say that the appellant is
to be given an opportunity to produce the documents for
necessary verification.

Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Order pronounced in Open Court on 06.11.2026.)




(R. BHAGYA DEVI)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
rv
Page 4 of 4