2012 (11) TMI 868 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit of service tax - Rule 5 - Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), - input services which were said to have been used for export of their output service Held that - Clear nexus was found between the output service and each of the input services and accordingly refund of the CENVAT Credit taken on the input services was held to be admissible in principle. It is for the limited purpose of quantification of the amount for refund in terms of the Board s Circular dated 19-1-2010 that the case was remitted to the original authority. This action of the appellate authority cannot be characterized as remand and therefore the contention raised by the appellant cannot be sustained - Revenue s appeal dismissed. The findings recorded by the appellate authority in relation to renting of immovable property and maintenance or repair service are beyond the scope of the appeal considered by it and hence liable to be ignored. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay application.
2. Refund claim of unutilized CENVAT credit for service tax.
3. Nexus between input services and output service for refund eligibility.
4. Power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on nexus between input and output services.
6. Rebuttal of findings by the appellant.
7. Findings beyond the scope of the appeal.
8. Dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Analysis:

1. The appeal filed by the Department was delayed by one day, leading to the need for a "condonation-of-delay" application. The Tribunal allowed the application after considering the explanation provided by the appellant, enabling the appeal to proceed without further delay.

2. The respondent had claimed a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit for service tax paid on various input services used for exporting their output service. The original authority granted a partial refund based on a direct nexus between certain input services and the output service, while rejecting claims for other services. The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who favored the party on the nexus issue and directed a reassessment based on specific requirements.

3. The main contention in the appeal was regarding the power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the nexus between input services and the output service. The Tribunal analyzed the findings and upheld the clear nexus established by the lower appellate authority, dismissing the appellant's claims of no connection between input and output services.

4. The Tribunal found that the case was not remanded but reassessed for quantifying the refund amount, as per the Board's Circular. The appellant's argument based on a previous case law was deemed unsustainable in this context.

5. Detailed findings by the Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the nexus between various input services and the output service, such as Business Support Service, transport facilities, accounting services, housekeeping, among others. The Tribunal noted that these findings were not effectively countered by the appellant, leading to the inevitable failure of the appeal on merit.

6. Certain findings by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding specific input services were considered beyond the scope of the appeal and were disregarded in the final decision.

7. Ultimately, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed based on the comprehensive analysis of the nexus between input and output services, the lack of substantiation by the appellant, and the findings within the scope of the appeal considered.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment provides a thorough understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect of the case.