Page 114 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

328 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
SPARC developed certain technologies for manufacturing of various pharmaceu-
ticals products and sold/transferred such technology to the appellant under five
different invoices after payment of Service Tax thereon under the head of Scien-
tific and Technical Consultancy Service. The appellant availed the Service Tax
Credit of this service tax paid by SPIL & SPARC. The appellant exported the said
service on the same day on which they had availed the credit of the service re-
ceived from SPIL & SPARC.
3. The revenue argued that the service received from SPIL & SPARC
was never used by the appellant for manufacture of any goods or for provision of
any service but was exported as such, and therefore, the appellant was not enti-
tled to avail Cenvat Credit of the said amount.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant is
registered with Service Tax under the category of Scientific and Technical Con-
sultancy Service provider. Learned Counsel argued that Cenvat Credit of Scien-
tific and Technical Consultancy Service used for providing same service cannot
be denied. He placed reliance on this Tribunal decision in Mercedes Benz Research
& Development India Pvt. Ltd. v. C.S.T., Bangalore, 2017 (49) S.T.R. 227 (Tri. -
Bang.). He also relied on decision of Tribunal in case of Finolex Cables Ltd. v.
Commissioner of C. Ex., Goa, 2007 (210) E.L.T. 76 (Tri. - Mumbai) where it was held
that the facility available to merchant exporter cannot be denied to an manufac-
turer.
5. The appellant also relied on Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules to as-
sert that input service can be exported as such after availing credit. It was also
argued that such services cannot be consumed when the same are used. It was
argued that the Goods & Services are substantially different in that respect.
6. Learned Authorized Representative relied on the impugned order.
He particularly pointed out Para 25.8, 25.10 & 25.12 of the impugned order
where assertion has been made that the service was exported on the same day
when it was received. In these arguments it was asserted by the Learned Author-
ized Representative that this fact of receipt & export of services on same day es-
tablishes that the services were not used by the appellant and, therefore, no cred-
it can be allowed of such services.
7. We have gone through the rival submissions, we find that the appel-
lants M/s. Unimed Technologies Limited entered into a contract with M/s. Sun
Pharma Global Inc., (SPGI) for supply of certain technology/know-how. The ap-
pellant sub-contracted the generation of this technology/know-how to SPIL &
SPARC. SPIL & SPARC produced the said technology/know-how and supplied
the same to the appellant who in turn further supplied the same to SPGI on the
same day when they took credit on invoice of SPIL/SPARC. The entire case of
revenue is that the appellant have not used the service provided by SPIL &
SPARC and, therefore, they cannot avail the said credit of service tax paid by
SPIL & SPARC. It has been argued that the service received from SPIL & SPARC
has been directly supplied to SPGI without use by the appellant. The revenue has
relied on the definition of input service which requires use of the input service by
the appellant before credit is availed.

GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  114