2016 (11) TMI 1422 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit - rejection on the ground that the CENVAT credit taken were not directly used in the manufacture of final products or for providing output services and not received in the premises of the appellant - Held that - the issues are no longer res integra and has been decided in favour of the appellant by this Tribunal in the cases, where the refund has been allowed on various services - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for Business Support Service, Maintenance, Management and Repair Service, Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency, Practising Chartered Accountant Service, and Technical Testing and Analysis Service.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (A) partially allowing the refund claim of the appellant under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing fine organic compounds, sought a refund of accumulated unutilised CENVAT Credit for the periods Jan-Mar 2010 and Apr-Jun 2010. The adjudicating authority partially rejected the claim based on certain services not directly used in manufacturing final products or providing output services.

2. The Commissioner (A) rejected the refund for Business Support Service, Maintenance, Management and Repair Service, Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency, Practising Chartered Accountant Service, and Technical Testing and Analysis Service. The rejection was based on reasons such as lack of nexus and input services being received in a different plot of the assessee's premises. The appellant, aggrieved by this decision, filed appeals challenging the rejection.

3. During the hearing, the counsel for the appellant argued that Business Support Services refund had been allowed in a previous Tribunal decision and that for the other four services, the refund denial was based on the input services being received in a different plot within the premises. The counsel cited previous Tribunal decisions and a High Court ruling to support the appellant's claim that owning multiple units in the same location constitutes a factory, even without separate registrations.

4. The learned AR, representing the respondent, reiterated the findings of the impugned order, opposing the appellant's arguments. However, the Tribunal noted that both issues had been previously decided in favor of the appellant in similar cases, citing specific Tribunal decisions and a High Court ruling.

5. Considering the precedents and legal principles established in previous cases, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the appellant by setting aside the impugned orders, providing consequential relief as necessary. The decision was based on the established legal interpretations and findings in similar cases, ensuring consistency in the application of law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal precedents, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal, providing a comprehensive overview of the case.