2011 (11) TMI 226 - AT - Central Excise

Admissibility of refund claims for the unutilized Service Tax credit accumulated refund claim of inputs services used in relation to manufacture of final product Held that - Notification No.7/2010-CE(NT), dt.27.2.10, replaces the words used in by the words used in or in relation to by amending Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT). Therefore, the services which have been used in relation to manufacture, the admissibility of CENVAT Credit cannot be disputed. As regards claim of accumulated credit, the decision in case of Capiq Engineering Pvt.Ltd vs CCE, Vadodara(2008 - TMI - 32384 - CESTAT, Ahmedabad) squarely applies to the facts of this case holding that refund of unutilized credit balance at end of quarter is admissible, though services have not been fully utilized in that quarter. - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 for unutilized Service Tax credit accumulated in 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.

Analysis:
The appeals filed by the Revenue against the refund claims of M/s Transatlantic Packaging Pvt.Ltd and M/s Sun Pharma Industries Ltd were taken together for disposal. The original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims, but the appeals by the respondents were allowed. The Revenue contended that the input services should have been used in the manufacture of the final product, citing various services like Customs House Agent service, Goods Transport Agency Service, Maintenance & Repair Service, and others. They relied on legal precedents to support their argument. However, the Tribunal noted that the Show Cause Notices did not propose to deny CENVAT credit, and the issue of admissibility of credit was not raised. The Tribunal emphasized that the only issue to be examined was whether the credit was accumulated and whether the refund was admissible under the relevant notification. The Tribunal highlighted a retrospective amendment that replaced 'used in' with 'used in or in relation to,' making the admissibility of CENVAT Credit indisputable. The Tribunal found that the decision in a previous case was applicable to the current situation and rejected the Revenue's appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the retrospective amendment nullified the argument against the admissibility of CENVAT Credit. The decision in a previous case was deemed relevant, and the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeals, rejecting them accordingly.