9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1049 - HC - Service Tax100% EOU - Export of services - Denial of refund claim - period of limitation - Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that the assessee is eligible to claim refund of CENVAT credit on construction service relying on case of Infosys Ltd. (2014 (3) TMI 695 - CESTAT BANGALORE)? - Held that - relevant date for calculating the time limit for grant of refund would be the date of receipt of consideration and not the date when the services were provided. If the date of receipt of consideration is reckoned then the claims are perfectly within time limit, and if date of rendering services is taken then obviously most of the claims would be time barred. As regards admissibility of CENVAT credit on construction service, the learned CESTAT relied on the decision in the case of Infosys Ltd. v. C.S.T., Bangalore (2014 (3) TMI 695 - CESTAT BANGALORE) wherein the definition of input services has been considered and admissibility of CENVAT credit in respect of various services and the rationale to take such a view has been discussed. - No infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the learned Tribunal to hold otherwise, because it is a pure case of remand to consider admissibility of CENVAT credit in respect of various services - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of time limit for claiming refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Eligibility of services as input services for grant of refund. 3. Nexus requirement for claiming refund of CENVAT credit on various services. 4. Claiming credit before payment of Service Tax. Issue 1: The judgment addressed the interpretation of the time limit for claiming a refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the relevant date for calculating the time limit for grant of refund would be the date of receipt of consideration, not the date when services were provided. This decision was based on a previous judgment by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal, which was considered binding as it had not been appealed against or reversed. The High Court agreed with this interpretation, noting that no contrary decision was presented. The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the CESTAT's decision on this issue. Issue 2: Regarding the eligibility of services as input services for the grant of a refund, the CESTAT relied on a decision in the case of Infosys Ltd. v. C.S.T., Bangalore, where the definition of 'input services' was considered. The CESTAT remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority based on this decision, for calculating the refund claim. The High Court found no issue with this decision, as it was a case of remand to consider the admissibility of CENVAT credit in respect of various services. The Court upheld the CESTAT's judgment on this issue. Issue 3: The judgment also discussed the requirement of nexus for claiming a refund of CENVAT credit on various services such as courier service, repair or maintenance services, telephone service, rent-a-cab service, management consultant service, and chartered accountant service. The Tribunal remanded the matter concerning these services, as they were deemed to lack nexus with the output services. The High Court found no fault with the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter and upheld it as a valid exercise to consider the admissibility of CENVAT credit for these services. Issue 4: Regarding the claim of claiming credit before the payment of Service Tax, the judgment did not provide extensive details. However, the Court dismissed the appeals without discussing any specific findings related to this issue. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Court did not find any merit in the argument related to claiming credit before the payment of Service Tax. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decisions of the CESTAT on various issues related to claiming refunds and eligibility of services for CENVAT credit. The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the CESTAT's judgments and ruled that there would be no order as to costs in this case.
|
