Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2011 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2011 (11) TMI 303 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Stay petition.
3. Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit.
4. Commissioner (Appeals) powers of remand.
5. Nexus between input services and output services.
6. Scope of input services.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant filed an appeal within three months of receiving the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The application for condonation of delay was disposed of as infructuous.

Stay Petition:
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal finally considering the nature of the issue, and thus, the stay petition was also treated as disposed of.

Refund of Unutilized CENVAT Credit:
The respondent, a 100% E.O.U., claimed a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 5,78,260 for the period from April 2008 to September 2008. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the refund is admissible, emphasizing that non-registration under a particular category is not a bar for refund.

Commissioner (Appeals) Powers of Remand:
The department challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order, arguing that he had no power of remand. However, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner's action was not a remand but a request for quantification of the refund, making the department's argument irrelevant.

Nexus Between Input Services and Output Services:
The Tribunal examined the nexus between the input services claimed by the respondent and the services rendered. The Commissioner (Appeals) provided detailed findings on the essential nature of services like Bandwidth Services, IT Enabled Services, Security Agency Services, Outdoor Catering Service, and Renting of Immovable Property Service, supporting the refund claim.

Scope of Input Services:
The Tribunal rejected the department's appeal, emphasizing the relative nature of input services. It was noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly determined the input services based on their nexus with the services provided by the respondent, with no valid grounds presented to interfere with the Commissioner's order on merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the department's appeal, upheld the refund claim, and disposed of the COD application and stay petition. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing a nexus between input services and output services for refund claims and clarified the scope of input services based on the nature of the services provided.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates