2015 (7) TMI 1427 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of accumulated and unutilized credit denied - denial on the ground that undertaking market survey for foreign entity does not amount to export of service - absence of certain facts from the concerned invoices - nexus of the service with their output service as also effect of invoices raised by the service provider paying in foreign currency. HELD THAT - The Tribunal in TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX 2014 (9) TMI 1135 - CESTAT, BANGALORE in the appellant s own case involving identical refund dispute pertaining to the earlier quarter where the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in the light of the interim order passed by the Tribunal. Matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the above order - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Claim for refund of accumulated and unutilized credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules denied on various grounds, including market survey for foreign entity not constituting export of service, absence of certain facts from invoices, nexus of service with output service, and effect of invoices paid in foreign currency.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the denial of the appellant's claim for refund of accumulated and unutilized credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The grounds for denial included the argument that undertaking a market survey for a foreign entity does not qualify as an export of service. Additionally, objections were raised regarding the absence of certain facts from the invoices, the nexus of the service with the output service, and the impact of invoices paid in foreign currency. Both sides acknowledged the numerous objections raised by the Revenue in several appeals.

2. The Tribunal had previously passed an Interim Order expressing views on each objection raised by the Revenue. Reference was made to a Final Order in the appellant's case from an earlier quarter, where the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication based on the interim order. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider refund claims in line with the interim order and to verify documents accordingly. The remand was primarily to determine the nexus and defects in the documents, with a specific time limit of six months set for the lower authorities to decide on the refund claims.

3. Ultimately, both parties requested a remand of the matter, leading to the impugned order being set aside and the case being remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision based on the interim order and observations from the Final Order in the appellant's previous case. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the need for a prompt resolution of the issues at hand within the stipulated time frame of six months.