2019 (11) TMI 1661 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT Credit - export of output services - disputed services are confirming to the definition of input service contained in Rule 2(l) ibid or not - nexus between the disputed input services and the output service exported by the appellant - Rule 5 of CCR - HELD THAT - Rule 14 of CCR provides that the irregular credit can be recovered and for effecting such recovery, the provisions of Section 11A ibid shall apply mutantis-mutandis. It is an admitted fact on record that no proceedings were initiated by the department, seeking for recovery of the alleged wrongly availed Cenvat Credit by the appellant. In this case, the appellant has filed the refund application under Rule 5 ibid. It has been mandated in Rule 5 that subject to compliance of the requirement of the notification and observance of the formula prescribed therein, the benefit of refund should be extended to the appellant. Since, the said Rule is silent about the aspect of establishing nexus between the input and the output services, the authorities functioned under the statute cannot go beyond the statutory provisions, in interpreting the provisions differently, in support of rejection of the refund application. There are no merit in the impugned order, insofar as it has denied the benefit of refund to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat Credit refund on disputed input services due to lack of nexus with output service exported by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services under "Business Auxiliary Service," exported services to its parent organization abroad during the disputed period. The appellant availed Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for input services related to the exported output service.

2. Rejection of Refund Application: The Jurisdictional service tax authorities rejected the appellant's refund application under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, stating that the disputed services did not meet the definition of input service and lacked a nexus with the exported output service. The appellant appealed this rejection before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the denial of refund benefit.

3. Appellant's Argument: The appellant's advocate argued that since the department did not invoke Rule 14 with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and no show cause proceedings were initiated, denying the refund solely based on the lack of confirmation to the input service definition was unjustified. The appellant complied with Rule 5 and Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) for filing the refund claim.

4. Revenue's Stand: The Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the denial of refund based on the lack of nexus between the disputed input services and the exported output service.

5. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities denied the refund solely on the grounds of input service definition non-confirmation and the absence of nexus with the output service. As Rule 14 allows for recovery of irregular Cenvat Credit with the application of Section 11A, the absence of such proceedings against the appellant indicated the lack of justification for denying the refund. Rule 5 mandates refund benefits subject to compliance with notification requirements, without specifying the need to establish nexus between input and output services. Therefore, the authorities erred in rejecting the refund application based solely on the nexus issue, as no other grounds were raised for denial.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the denial of the refund benefit. The decision emphasized adherence to statutory provisions and the lack of legal basis for denying the refund solely on the nexus aspect.