2016 (9) TMI 1280 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - Refund claim - air-travel service - cab operator service - chartered accountant services - manpower supply service - out-door catering service - professional charges - denial on the ground that the service do not fall under the scope of input service - Held that - in various case laws it was held that the credit is available and consequently refund should be granted of such credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules for various services.

Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing spectacle lenses, filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for a specific period. The adjudicating authority partially allowed the refund claim but rejected a portion related to various input services. The Commissioner (Appeals) further partially allowed the claim but disallowed CENVAT Credit on services like air travel, cab operators, chartered accountant services, manpower supply service, outdoor catering, and professional charges. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal against this decision.

The appellant argued that the services for which the refund was rejected fall under the definition of input services. They cited various case laws where courts allowed CENVAT credit/refund for similar services. The Tribunal noted the case laws presented by the appellant, which supported the availability of credit for services like air travel, cab operators, chartered accountant services, manpower supply service, outdoor catering, and professional charges. Based on the precedents and the argument presented, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, considering the precedents and legal arguments presented. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted relief based on the availability of CENVAT credit for the disputed services.