9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 943 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - accumulated unutilised CENVAT credit - service tax paid on input services - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE-NT dated 14.3.2006 - nexus between the input services and output services - provider of information technology software services to the parent company abroad - Held that - it is found that in respect of these services reliance of the appellant on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Convergys India Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (5) TMI 50 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI which has been upheld by the Hon ble High Court reported in 2010 (8) TMI 47 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT is squarely applicable and appropriate. Moreover, the submission regarding the nature of service received and its use also shows that the stand taken by the Revenue that there is no nexus between the input service and output service is not correct. Therefore, by following the ratio of above case laws, the appellant is entitled for the refund and there is nexus between the input services and the output services. - Appeals allowed by way of remand
Issues involved:
Whether the appellant is entitled to refund claim of accumulated unutilised CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE-NT dated 14.3.2006. Analysis: The appellant, a private limited company functioning as a 100% EOU under the STP scheme, filed refund claims for service tax paid on input services. The issue revolved around the nexus between input and output services for refund eligibility. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims, but the Commissioner (A) partially allowed them based on the nexus. The appellant contended that the impugned order was against established precedents, citing a Tribunal decision upheld by the High Court. The appellant submitted detailed justifications for each input service, supported by relevant case laws. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found a direct nexus between the input services and output services, disagreeing with the Revenue's stance. The Tribunal examined a table submitted by the appellant detailing various input services, their nature, and utilization for providing output services. Each service was justified with relevant case laws supporting refund eligibility. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contentions, finding the reliance on precedent decisions appropriate. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the nature of services and their direct contribution to the output services, refuting the Revenue's claim of no nexus. The Tribunal allowed all appeals, remanding the case for quantification and payment of the refund claim. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's entitlement to the refund claim, emphasizing the established nexus between the input services and the output services. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the justifications provided for each input service, supported by relevant case laws and precedents. The Tribunal's ruling highlighted the importance of demonstrating a direct link between input and output services for refund eligibility, ultimately allowing the appeals and remanding the case for further proceedings.
|
