9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 386 - AT - Service TaxRefund Claims - claiming the benefit of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (N.T.) dated 14.3.2006 - Unutilized CENVAT credits taken on input services which were used in providing output service which was exported - AO issued show cause notice - Commissioner(Appeal) granted holding that some of the services which were not recognized as input services by the lower authority were input services essential for rendering the output service except Event Management Service & Club or Association Service - On the part of the appellant (Revenue), the contention is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in this case did not have the power of remand - Held and decided that send the matter in remand to original authority and afford an opportunity to the respondent to produce certificates from Chartered Accountant as required in the Board s Circular dated 19.1.2010 ibid - Stay petition and appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Issues Involved:
Stay applications filed by the department seeking stay of the impugned order granting partial relief to the respondent in relation to three refund applications. Interpretation of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (N.T.) dated 14.3.2006 for refund of unutilized CENVAT credits. Adjudication of refund claims by Assistant Commissioner and subsequent appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals). Dispute over recognition of certain services as input services for refund purposes. Challenge against the appellate authority's order and the power of remand. Analysis: 1. Stay Applications and Refund Claims: The department filed stay applications seeking to stay the operation of the impugned order granting partial relief to the respondent in relation to three refund applications for unutilized CENVAT credits. The respondent claimed the benefit of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (N.T.) for the refund subject to certain conditions and limitations. The Assistant Commissioner issued show-cause notices for each refund claim, contesting the claimant's proposal, and granted substantial relief but rejected claims for services not recognized as input services. 2. Appeals and Partial Relief: The respondent appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the adverse portions of the Orders-in-Original. The Commissioner granted partial relief by recognizing some services as essential input services for rendering the output service. However, certain services like 'Event Management Service' and 'Club or Association Service' were held to have no nexus with the output service. The Commissioner directed the production of Chartered Accountant's Certificates for recognized input services as per the Board's Circular. 3. Challenge Against Remand Order: The department filed appeals against what was referred to as a 'remand ordered by the lower appellate authority.' The department relied on the Supreme Court's judgment and Tribunal's decision regarding the power of remand by appellate Commissioners. The respondent argued that the impugned order was not a remand but a direction for compliance with the Board's Circular. The Tribunal found a consensus between the parties and directed the original authority to ensure compliance with the Circular while upholding the Commissioner's decision on merits. 4. Decision and Direction: The Tribunal disposed of the appeals with a direction to the original authority to allow the respondent to produce certificates from a Chartered Accountant as required by the Board's Circular for sanctioning refunds related to recognized input services. The stay applications were also disposed of, emphasizing compliance with the Circular for refund purposes. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the stay applications, interpretation of refund claims under a specific notification, recognition of input services, challenge against remand orders, and the direction for compliance with Circular requirements for refund sanctioning.
|
