2012 (6) TMI 635 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit availed on input services - original authority rejected the refund claims in toto holding that the services which were claimed by the parties to be input services did not have any nexus with the export of output services - Board's Circular dated 19.1.2010 required those who claimed refunds of the kind involved in these cases, to produce Chartered Accountant's certificate in support of such claim Held that - Original authorities will have to re-examine the question whether the refund-claimants have been able to establish a nexus between the input services and the output services - parties need to be given a reasonable opportunity of producing Chartered Accountant's certificates and the original authorities should examine the same in the light of the Board's Circular - orders are set aside and all these appeals are allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay applications filed by the department for impugned orders
2. Refund claims of unutilized CENVAT credit on input services for export of output services
3. Consideration of Board's Circular No. 120/1/2010 by lower authorities
4. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) for remand of cases
5. Nexus between input services and output services
6. Requirement of Chartered Accountant's certificate for refund claims
7. Applicability of limitation to refund claims
8. Tribunal's decision on limitation for refund claims

Analysis:

1. The Appellate Tribunal received applications from the department seeking a stay on the impugned orders. The Tribunal decided to dispose of all appeals involving identical issues, whether by the department or the assessees, after rejecting the stay applications.

2. The assesses had filed refund claims for unutilized CENVAT credit on input services related to the export of output services. The original authority rejected some claims, while partially granting others. Some parties were aggrieved by the rejection of refund claims as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matters to the original authorities for reconsideration.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that lower authorities did not consider the Board's Circular, directing them to reevaluate the nexus between services and output services in light of the circular. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the cases for fresh decision.

4. The department contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the jurisdiction to remand cases, citing Supreme Court and Tribunal judgments. The Tribunal agreed that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the power of remand but decided to remand the cases based on the valid reasons given by the Commissioner (Appeals).

5. The Tribunal noted that the issue of nexus between input and output services was crucial. The cases were remanded to the original authorities for re-examination, emphasizing the need for Chartered Accountant's certificates and compliance with the Board's Circular.

6. The requirement of a Chartered Accountant's certificate for refund claims was highlighted, along with the necessity for all parties to be given a fair opportunity to present their case and for original authorities to consider objections regarding time-barred claims.

7. The Tribunal clarified that parties could cite relevant case law on the applicability of limitation to refund claims and would be allowed to adduce evidence in support of their claims.

8. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed all appeals by way of remand, directing the original authorities to re-examine the nexus between input and output services, consider Chartered Accountant's certificates, and provide a fair opportunity for all parties to present their case.