2016 (7) TMI 598 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of cenvat credit - eligible input services - For exported of services, they consumed various services in India - It was explained by the counsel that each of the above services are very much essential for providing the output services - Held that - appellant is eligible for refund of input service credit of all the services listed in the table above. The rejection of refund is unjustified. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Notification 5/2006 CE(NT) dated 14-03-2006.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund Claim Rejection: The appellant, a 100% EOU registered with STPI, filed a refund application under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Notification No.5/2006 CE(NT) for the period October to December 2011. The appellant sought refund of unutilized Cenvat credit amounting to ?27,59,762. The original authority granted a partial refund of ?13,44,319 and disallowed ?14,15,443. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, citing the need for a direct nexus between input services and output services. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the disallowance was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law.

2. Input Services Nexus: The appellant's counsel contended that all the disallowed services were essential for providing output services. He argued that the decision in Maruthi Suzuki Ltd case was not applicable as it pertained to inputs, not input services. Specifically, the counsel highlighted the disallowance of credit on renting fit outs along with immovable property services. The appellant demonstrated that fit outs were integral to the rental agreement and should be considered part of immovable property services. The counsel referenced a relevant judgment to support this argument.

3. Principles of Natural Justice: The Tribunal noted that no show cause notice was issued to the appellant, depriving them of a chance to defend their case effectively. This lack of notice was deemed a violation of natural justice principles.

4. Eligibility for Refund: The Tribunal carefully analyzed each disallowed service, finding a direct nexus between input services and output services. Services like air travel, banking, business support, and various others were considered essential for business operations. The Tribunal also addressed the fit out rent issue, concluding that it should be included in the category of renting immovable property services. The rejection of the refund was deemed unjustified, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the judgment overturned the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and allowed the appellant's refund claim, emphasizing the importance of establishing a direct nexus between input services and output services for eligibility.