2010 (7) TMI 710 - AT - Service Tax

Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - lower authorities have rejected the refund claims filed by the appellant in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the period June 2007 to March 2008 - following the decision in Malbro Stone Exports 2007 -TMI - 2233 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI which referred that even if the exports were exempted, the input stage service credit has to be granted - Held that set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo decision after appreciating the declaration of law - Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for IT enabled services export; Classification of services as Information Technology Software service; Rejection of maintenance and repair services category; Consideration of applicable case laws and circulars for granting input service credit.

The judgment addresses the rejection of refund claims by the lower authorities filed by the appellant for the period June 2007 to March 2008 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, engaged in exporting IT enabled services in the field of Information Technology Services, had their refund claim denied on the basis that their services were classified as Information Technology Software service, which became taxable post 16.6.2008. Additionally, the authorities dismissed the appellant's claim of falling under maintenance and repair services category despite their registration with the department.

The learned Chartered Accountant highlighted various decisions and a circular by the Board emphasizing the necessity of granting input service credit even if the exports were exempted. These references included CBEC Circular No. M.F.(D.R.) letter D.O.F. No. 334/1/2008-TRU, Malbro Stone Exports, I. Seva Systems (P.) Ltd., Punjab Stainless Steel Industries v. CCE, Noble Grain India (P.) Ltd. v. CCE, and Repro India Ltd. v. Union of India. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider these declarations of law and simply stated their inapplicability. Consequently, the judge decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after properly appreciating the referenced decisions. The appeal was allowed for remand purposes.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the rejection of refund claims under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for IT enabled services export, the classification of services, and the importance of considering applicable case laws and circulars for granting input service credit. The decision highlighted the need for a proper assessment based on relevant legal principles and directed a reevaluation by the Commissioner in light of the referenced decisions.