2011 (11) TMI 39 - AT - Service Tax

Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Re-quantification of the amount for refund - held that - The limited purpose for which the case was sent back was to re-quantify the amount for refund after considering the Chartered Accountant s certificate to be produced by the party. This course of action was taken pursuant to the guidelines laid down in the Board s Circular dated 19.1.2010. - this does not amount to remand as the substantive issue was settled by the appellate authority itself. In the result, the impugned order is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
- Nexus between input service and output service
- Power of remand by Commissioner (Appeals)

Analysis:
1. Refund Claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:
The case involved a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for unutilized CENVAT credit on input service used in providing output service for export. The original authority rejected the claim citing a lack of nexus between the input service and the output service. The appellant then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who found a nexus between the input service and the output service, directing re-quantification of the refund amount based on a Chartered Accountant's certificate.

2. Nexus between Input Service and Output Service:
The central issue revolved around establishing the nexus between the input service and the output service for the purpose of claiming the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the nexus existed, leading to the remand of the case for re-quantification of the refund amount. This decision was supported by the Board's Circular dated 19.1.2010, which required the quantification of refund amounts based on specific guidelines.

3. Power of Remand by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to remand the case for re-quantification of the refund amount, arguing that the Commissioner did not have the power of remand. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the remand was not a remand in the traditional sense, as the substantive issue of establishing the nexus between input and output services had already been settled by the appellate authority. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and sustained the impugned order, emphasizing that the remand was for a specific purpose related to quantification and did not alter the substantive findings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding the refund claim, emphasizing the establishment of nexus between input and output services. The Tribunal clarified that the remand for re-quantification did not constitute a traditional remand, as the substantive issue had been resolved by the appellate authority.