2010 (8) TMI 602 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Consulting engineering and maintenance or repair services - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dt.14/3/2006 - the Respondents had taken credit of service tax paid on various input services in accordance with a Board s Circular No.120/1/2010 ST dated 19.1.2010 - They had produced necessary documents to substantiate their claim - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Stay application filed by Revenue against Commissioner (Appeals) order vacating Original Authority's rejection of refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a stay application filed by the Revenue against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which vacated the Original Authority's rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs.83,423 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The respondents, engaged in providing output services like consulting engineering and maintenance or repair services, had paid service tax on various input services. The Original Authority rejected the refund claim due to the failure of the respondents to substantiate their claim with required documents. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee after a thorough examination of the case records, grounds of appeal, and submissions made during the Personal Hearing.

The Commissioner (Appeals) considered whether the refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14/3/2006, was admissible to the respondents for specific input services related to their output services. The appellant had submitted necessary documents such as Service Tax Registration Certificate, invoices, FIRCs, and STPI certificate to support their claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the input services, including air travel agents service, CA service, courier service, maintenance and repair service, among others, qualified for availing credit as per the Board's Circular. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with the original adjudicating authority's findings regarding input services for maintenance or repair, stating that the services were for updating and upgrading software, which was of a regular and recurring nature, thus entitling the appellants to the refund.

Upon reviewing the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal did not find any infirmity in it. The Commissioner (Appeals) had determined that the respondents had correctly taken credit of service tax paid on various input services in line with a circular of the CBEC and had provided the necessary documents to substantiate their claim. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that no interference was warranted in the impugned order at that stage and rejected the stay application filed by the Revenue.