2015 (7) TMI 431 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - whether the appellant is eligible for the refund of an amount availed as Cenvat credit on the inputs services which were received by the appellant during the period April 2005 to September 2006 for providing output services which are exported. - Held that - rule 5 which not provide for refund of unutilized credit to the producer of output services got substituted during relevant time - Once the refunds are under the amended rules & notification issued thereunder, the same can t be denied merely because they relate to exports made prior to date of amendment - Decision in the case WNS GLOBAL SERVICES (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI 2008 (1) TMI 94 - CESTAT, MUMBAI followed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rejection of refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, stating they were unable to utilize CENVAT credit of service tax on input services used for exported output services. The lower authorities issued a show-cause notice, contesting the claim, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The first appellate authority upheld the rejection, citing lack of documentary evidence and the timing of credit receipt. The appellant argued for a remand, citing readiness to provide evidence and referencing Notification no. 4/2006. The Departmental Representative argued against retrospective application of the notification, citing legal principles and previous tribunal decisions.

The main issue to decide was the eligibility of the appellant for refund of CENVAT credit on input services used for exported output services. The Revenue contended that the appellant became eligible for refund only after a specific date due to a notification, not retrospectively. However, the Tribunal found errors in the Revenue's argument and referred to a previous case where it was established that the notification was retrospective in nature. The High Court also upheld this view, confirming that the appellant was entitled to the refund.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for the CENVAT credit refund for the period before the specified date and remanded the case for quantification of the refund amount based on the documents to be submitted. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.