2015 (4) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Refund claim - CENVAT Credit - Held that - First appellate authority has held that all most of the services are eligible for the benefit of cenvat credit and refund can be granted to the appellant. In my considered view, despite such a clear cut findings, the impugned order remanding the issue back to the adjudicating authority is incorrect. In my view the first appellate authority should have disposed of the appeal on merits by directing the appellant to produce any additional evidence, if required. - As regards the rejection of the refund claim in respect of Public Relation Services, consulting services, I find that the first appellate authority has not considered this claim in its correct perspective in as much as it is the claim of the appellant that these service are utilised in the manufacturing facility created by them. In my view, the entire issue needs re consideration by the first appellate authority. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Refund claim of Cenvat Credit for various services including Banking, Clearing and Forwarding, Consulting, Courier, Testing, and Inspection services.

Analysis:

1. Refund Claim of Cenvat Credit for Various Services:
The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 146-2013(AHD-II) dated 23.7.2013 concerning the refund claim of Cenvat Credit for service tax paid on multiple services. The appellant contested the remand of the case by the first appellate authority to the adjudicating authority for scrutiny of refund claims related to Clearing and Forwarding Agents, Transportation of Goods by Roads, Courier Services, Testing and Inspection, Banking and Financial Services, Business Auxiliary Services, and Business Support Services. The impugned order remanded the issue despite the first appellate authority's clear findings that most services were eligible for Cenvat credit and refund. The appellate judge deemed this remand incorrect, stating that the first appellate authority should have decided the appeal on merits and requested additional evidence if necessary. The rejection of the refund claim for Public Relation Services and consulting services was also highlighted, emphasizing the need for a reevaluation by the first appellate authority considering the appellant's claim of utilization in their manufacturing facility.

2. Decision and Remand:
The judge set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority for a decision on merits following the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, indicating that the first appellate authority should reconsider the issues and make a decision based on the evidence presented. The operative part of the judgment was pronounced in court, emphasizing the direction for a thorough reconsideration of the refund claims and a fair decision based on the evidence and legal principles involved.