2013 (10) TMI 843 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim of Accumulated Credit - 100% E.O.U. - services were used for manufacture of the goods - Held that - Following COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE V/s SFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD. 2013 (2) TMI 472 - CESTAT BANGALORE - The services have been used by them in relation to the manufacture of the finished goods and also in the day-to-day activities like procurement of raw materials, production and quantity control, marketing and sale & export of the finished goods - This finding of the original authority has not been rebutted in the grounds of appeal Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of accumulated credit on various input services denied due to lack of nexus with manufacture.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of refund of accumulated credit on various input services like calibration, certification, cleaning, consultancy, freight, machining, renting, maintenance, manpower supply, and security services. The department denied the refund, arguing that there was no nexus with the manufacturing process for these services.

The appellant, a 100% EOU, had been claiming refunds of CENVAT Credit since 2006. While most refunds were granted, disputes arose on some occasions. The advocate highlighted that in a previous Tribunal decision, the refund was granted in favor of the appellant. Additionally, the same Commissioner (A) had passed contradictory orders on the same issue, allowing the refund in one order and denying it in another.

The Tribunal noted the department's inconsistent stance on the issue and the contradictory orders passed by the same Commissioner (A). It was observed that the Tribunal had previously allowed the benefit of refund in a similar case involving the same appellant. Given the circumstances and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that there was no need to delay the decision further. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment resolves the issue of refund of accumulated credit on various input services by highlighting the department's inconsistent stand, contradictory orders by the same Commissioner, and previous Tribunal decisions in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief.