2016 (6) TMI 1222 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - Refund claim - input services - consultancy services - maintenance and repair services - labour contract services - clearing services - Held that - the disputed services herein fall in the definition of input services and therefore the appellant is entitled to refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CCR 2004 - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in the export of processed gherkins, filed a refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit for the quarter January to March 2010. The Assistant Commissioner rejected a portion of the refund claim, which was further denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) in an order dated 20.11.2012. The appellant appealed this rejection, arguing that services like consultancy, maintenance, repair, labor contract, and clearing services qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The appellant contended that these services have a direct or indirect relation to the manufacture of goods and the business activities. The appellant supported their argument by citing various judgments and circulars, highlighting that the bills for each service demonstrated a nexus with the business. Notably, the appellant referred to previous cases where similar refund claims were allowed, emphasizing the broad interpretation of activities relating to business by the courts.

The appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order lacked consideration of the appellant's submissions and relevant legal precedents. The counsel relied on judgments such as Vishal Natural Food Products Bangalore, ANZ International Vs CC Bangalore, and circulars like Circular Letter DOF No. 334/1/2010-TRU to support the claim that the disputed services indeed qualified as input services. Additionally, the counsel referenced specific cases where CENVAT credit refunds were granted for similar services, reinforcing the appellant's entitlement to the refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The counsel's reliance on legal precedents and circulars aimed to establish a strong legal basis for the appellant's claim and challenge the denial of CENVAT credit by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Upon reviewing the arguments and the cited judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the disputed services, including consultancy, maintenance, repair, labor contract, and clearing services, fell within the definition of input services. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The decision was based on the interpretation of activities relating to business, as broadened by legal precedents like the division bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE. The Tribunal's ruling favored the appellant, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief if any.