2016 (9) TMI 1134 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax paid - amount of credit availed on Mediclaim for the family members of the staff and service tax paid from the opening balance of the CENVAT account - Held that - the refund is ineligible and fairly conceded by the learned Chartered Accountant. Accordingly, the appeal by the appellant on the denial of this refund amount is rejected. Refund claim - unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax paid - corporate car parking - Held that - the identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida 2015 (8) TMI 595 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and the bench held in favour of the assessee therein by relying upon the ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of KPMG vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 2013 (4) TMI 493 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . Since identical issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee, respectfully following the same, we hold that refund of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on car parking services is eligible. Refund claim - unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax paid - renewal of software used - Held that - we find from the invoices raised by the software company that it is in respect of the software which are used by the appellant in furtherance of their business activity. Since these services are directly connected with the business activity of the appellant, which is management consultancy, consulting engineer, IT software service, etc., we hold that the service tax paid on the renewal of the software by the service provider is eligible to be claimed as refund by the appellant. - Appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rejection of refund claim of ?11,93,036/- by lower authorities.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai involved a dispute regarding the rejection of a refund claim amounting to ?11,93,036/- by the lower authorities. The claim was denied on the basis that certain components of the claimed amount were ineligible for refund. The appellant, represented by a Chartered Accountant, challenged this denial before the Tribunal.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal addressed the specific components of the refund claim. Firstly, it was noted that the refund claim related to service tax paid on Mediclaim for the family members of the staff and service tax paid from the opening balance of the CENVAT account. The Tribunal concurred with the learned Chartered Accountant that these components were indeed ineligible for refund. Consequently, the appeal on the denial of refund for these amounts was rejected.

Regarding the service tax paid by the appellant on car parking services provided by service providers, the Tribunal referred to a previous judgment in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida. Citing this precedent, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the refund of CENVAT credit for service tax paid on car parking services was eligible.

Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the issue of service tax paid on software subscriptions renewed by the appellant. After reviewing the invoices from the software company, the Tribunal determined that the software services were directly linked to the appellant's business activities, such as management consultancy and IT software services. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the service tax paid on the renewal of software subscriptions was eligible for refund.

As there were no other disputes apart from the aforementioned issues, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal accordingly. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of each component of the refund claim, ultimately upholding the eligibility of certain elements while rejecting others based on legal precedents and the nature of the services involved.