2008 (8) TMI 135 - AT - Service Tax

Claim for refund of unutilized credit Commissioner upheld the claims subject to verification of all documents/fulfilment of conditions of the Notification No. 5/06 - since the Commissioner (Appeals) right to remand a case has been taken away with the amendment of Sec. 35A w.e.f. 11-5 -01, impugned order is set aside and case is remanded to adj. authority for re-examining the refund claims, subject to the assesses fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the Notification 5/06- CE dated 14-3-06

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of unutilized input service credit for a manufacturer of ready-to-eat meals.
2. Rejection of refund claims due to lack of prescribed enclosures.
3. Consideration of documents for refund eligibility.
4. Authority's requirement for original documents for refund.
5. Entitlement to refund subject to conditions of Notification No. 5/2006-C.E.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a dispute over the entitlement of a manufacturer of ready-to-eat meals to a refund of unutilized input service credit, excluding credit on Product Liability Insurance, for services used in the manufacture of exported products. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund, subject to conditions in Notification No. 5/2006-C.E., dated 14-3-2006.

2. The Revenue contested the refund claims, alleging that the manufacturer failed to enclose necessary documents supporting credit availed under Cenvat Credit Rules and Service Tax Rules. The Adjudicating authority rejected the claims on this ground, but the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the manufacturer's willingness to produce required documents for refund verification.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and Notification No. 5/2006-C.E., allowing refund of unutilized credit not used for tax payments. It was noted that the manufacturer only exported products, eliminating local sales and the need for using the input service credit. The Commissioner found that the manufacturer had utilized all input services except Product Liability Insurance, supporting the refund eligibility.

4. The Revenue was not aggrieved by the order as it did not grant a blanket refund but required verification of documents and conditions. The Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to remand the case due to an amendment, leading to a remand to the adjudicating authority for re-examination of refund claims based on the conditions of Notification No. 5/06-CE.

5. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for the manufacturer to substantiate their refund claims with relevant documents and fulfill the conditions specified in Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. for the refund of unutilized input service credit.