2012 (6) TMI 92 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claims rejected is that the services were not rendered from a registered premise - held that - the benefit has been denied on the ground that the services were not rendered from a registered firm and nowhere it has been stated that the service was not rendered from the premises at all. - the ld. Commissioner could not have travelled beyond the show-cause notice in the revision proceedings. This aspect also will have to be considered in detail. In these circumstances, on this issue also, appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour. Input services - repair and maintenance of capital goods - held that - services used in repair and maintenance of capital goods can be said to have direct nexus with the output service. - appellant has made out a prima facie case. When the assessee having centralized billing and accounting system, non-registration of branch office would not come in the way of availment of Cenvat credit. Since no contrary decision has been placed before me, on this ground also appellant has made out a prima facie case. Joint ownership of property - service tax on renting - Payment of service tax by the appellant after dividing the rent on its own portion - prima facie case in favor of appellant - stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules due to lack of documentary evidence.
2. Rejection of refund claims based on the nexus between input services and software exports.
3. Rejection of refund claims due to services not rendered from a registered premise.
4. Dispute over services rendered from a de-bonded premise.
5. Service tax payment for renting premises from multiple parties.

Issue 1:
The Appellant filed refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules for specific periods but faced show-cause notices proposing denial of Cenvat credit refund due to insufficient documentary evidence regarding export and domestic turnover, as well as the nexus between exported software and input services utilized. The original adjudicating authority rejected a part of the refund, leading to appeals by the Appellant. However, the Commissioner initiated a revision of orders and issued show-cause notices demanding a portion of the sanctioned amounts as refund.

Issue 2:
One ground for rejecting refund claims was the lack of nexus between 'Management and repair services' received and software exports. The Appellant argued citing a Tribunal decision that services used in capital goods maintenance can have a direct nexus with output services, presenting a prima facie case in their favor.

Issue 3:
Refund claims were also rejected on the basis that services were not rendered from a registered branch office. The Appellant relied on a Tribunal decision stating that non-registration of a branch office would not hinder Cenvat credit availment if centralized billing and accounting systems were in place, establishing a prima facie case in their favor.

Issue 4:
A dispute arose over services allegedly rendered from a de-bonded premise without clear evidence or indication of the de-bonding date. The Commissioner's order denied benefits based on services not being rendered from a registered firm, but the Appellant argued that this issue was not explicitly raised in the show-cause notices, presenting a case for further consideration.

Issue 5:
Regarding service tax payment for renting premises from multiple parties, the Appellant entered an agreement with one party but divided the rent between the party and their spouse. The Appellant claimed eligibility for benefits as both parties were registered with the Service Tax Department and issued required invoices. The dispute centered on whether the spouse was the building owner and had paid service tax, requiring further examination at a later stage.

In conclusion, the Appellant successfully made out prima facie cases in their favor for issues related to nexus between services and exports, non-registered branch offices, services from de-bonded premises, and service tax payment for rented premises. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and granted a stay against recovery during the appeal process.