2017 (3) TMI 1598 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - various input services - Manpower recruitment agency Services - Security Agency Charges - Internet Charges - Telecommunication services - Auditing Charges - House Keeping charges - Cleaning/ Pest Control - AMC for Xerox/Printing machine - ISMS certification & quality control service - AMC charges for Fire alarm systems - UPS maintenance charges - AMC charges for HVAC Equipment (heating, ventilation & AC) - Website design & development charges - Renewal of windows (operating system) license - Common area maintenance - Banking and Other Financial Service - denial on the account of nexus - Held that - The issue whether the inputs services are used by the appellant and are eligible for refund has been analysed by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case 2016 (6) TMI 679 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , where it was held that Various services mentioned in the definition 2(l) are only illustrative and other services also when used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee would not qualify as input services. Cleaning services and housekeeping services are for proper upkeep of the office. These services definitely are not for personal use or consumption of an employee. The denial of refund is unjustified - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for various services provided by the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant, registered for Business Auxiliary Service (BAS), filed a refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit for the period October 2012 to December 2012. Despite initial rejection of the refund claim, the appellant pursued the matter through adjudication and the first appellate stage. The refund amount of ?6,78,605 was ultimately rejected.

The appellant's representative, Shri Venkat Prasad, presented detailed arguments regarding the various services for which the refund was denied. The services, along with the corresponding submissions and credit availed, were meticulously laid out in a table. These services included Manpower recruitment agency services, Security Agency Charges, Internet Charges, Telecommunication, Auditing Charges, House Keeping, Cleaning/Pest Control, AMC for Xerox/Printing machine, ISMS certification & quality control service, AMC charges for Fire alarm systems, UPS maintenance charges, AMC charges for HVAC Equipment, Website design & development charges, Renewal of windows license, Common area maintenance, and Banking and Other Financial Service.

The appellant's consultant contended that all the mentioned services had been previously analyzed by the Tribunal in the appellant's own case and were deemed eligible for credit/refund in the Final Order reported in 2016-TIOL-1592-CESTAT-HYD. The learned consultant argued that the denial of refund lacked justification.

Upon considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the authorities had rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the input services did not have a nexus with the output services provided by the appellant. However, the Tribunal noted that the issue had already been examined in the appellant's previous case, where the services were deemed eligible for credit/refund. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of establishing a direct link between input services and output services for refund eligibility. The judgment underscored the significance of precedent cases in determining the eligibility of services for credit/refund under CENVAT rules.