9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 466 - AT - Service TaxDenial of refund claim - refund of unutilized Cenvat credit of Service Tax - nexus with output services (export) - Held that - The ground on which the refund is denied is that the accumulated input service credit did not pertain to the period during which output services were exported for which the refund claim is made. - appellants had taken the credit on receipt of the input service invoices of PWC and thereafter, the services were exported and then, the refund claim was filed. From the Boards Circular No. 120/01/2010 dated 19/01/2010 it is abundantly clear that accumulated input service credit, not pertaining to services exported during the quarter for which claim is made can be refunded as there is no bar in Notification No. 5/2006 C. E. (N. T.). The issue has been considered in CCE, Mysore vs. Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) limited 2011 (3) TMI 193 - CESTAT, BANGALORE and Amdocs Business Services Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (9) TMI 31 - CESTAT MUMBAI wherein it was held that the refund can be allowed of credit accumulated in the past period and claimed in a subsequent quarter . Therefore, in terms of the Board Circular stated above and also the decisions of the tribunal in Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd. and Am Docs Business Services (P) Ltd., (supra), I am of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Appellant's eligibility for a refund claim for input invoices prior to the claim period. Analysis: The appellants, engaged in providing output services, filed a refund claim for unutilized Cenvat credit of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 12,68,737 paid on input services during July 2011 to October 2011. The dispute arose as the input invoices submitted were prior to the claim period of January 2012 to March 2012. The authorities rejected the refund claim citing Notification No. 05/2006 CE (NT) and Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which allows refunds only for credits related to the period of export. The appellant contended that Circular No. 120/01/2010 clarified that refunds of past period credits can be claimed in subsequent quarters. The appellant also relied on a judgment stating eligibility for a refund irrespective of the credit period. The Tribunal analyzed the situation and found that the appellants had accumulated unutilized credit from input services provided by a third party before the claim period. The authorities had rejected the claim based on the timing of credit utilization, not aligning with the export period. However, the Tribunal referred to Circular No. 120/01/2010, which did not prohibit refunds for past period credits in subsequent quarters. Additionally, the Tribunal cited precedents where refunds were allowed for credits accumulated in the past and claimed in a later quarter. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund claim based on the timing of credit utilization was unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized that the appellant's claim for a refund of unutilized Cenvat credit was valid, despite the input invoices being prior to the claim period. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents and circulars to support the appellant's eligibility for the refund, overturning the authorities' decisions based on Notification No. 05/2006 CE (NT).
|
