2015 (6) TMI 195 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Commissioner allowed credit claim - Held that - When appellant was an exporter and the Cenvat credit it had earned was not possible to be utilized by it, there was no bar to grant the refund thereof to the appellant, which was found to be genuine claim in the absence of any evidence suggesting that the appellant has erroneously earned the credit. Therefore, there is no scope to presume that the Cenvat credit is inadmissible. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Delay in appeal, Refund granted by Commissioner (Appeals), Cenvat credit utilization, Export facilitation measures, Review Committee's decision

Delay in appeal:
The judgment addresses the delay in respect of appeal numbers ST/40800 to 40803/2013, condoning the delay due to administrative difficulties explained in the application for condonation of delay. The delay is considered reasonable, and all four MA (COD) are allowed as a result.

Refund granted by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Revenue is in appeal opposing the refund granted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner stated reasons for granting the refund, including the appellant's premises shift not disentitling Cenvat credit and services availed not necessarily needing to be consumed at the same premises. The Commissioner also highlighted that certain services directly attributable to the provision of output service are admissible for refund, along with services as export facilitation measures.

Cenvat credit utilization:
The judgment emphasizes that as an exporter, the appellant's inability to utilize the earned Cenvat credit does not bar the refund, especially when the claim is genuine and no evidence suggests erroneous credit earning. It is noted that there is no basis to presume the inadmissibility of Cenvat credit.

Export facilitation measures:
Regarding the refund for services as export facilitation measures, the judgment supports the grant of refund to the appellant, emphasizing the genuine nature of the claim and the absence of evidence suggesting erroneous credit earning.

Review Committee's decision:
The Review Committee's decision to dismiss all five stay applications and appeals is discussed, noting the lack of cogent reasons provided to challenge the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The decision is criticized for being mechanical, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and stay applications.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses various issues related to delay in appeal, refund granted by the Commissioner (Appeals), Cenvat credit utilization, export facilitation measures, and the Review Committee's decision, providing detailed analysis and reasoning for each aspect while ultimately dismissing the appeals and stay applications based on the findings presented.