2016 (11) TMI 1118 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - refund claim for un-utilised CENVAT credit - back office operations - product support - technology infrastructure and design services - alleged input services do not have nexus with the output services - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of M/s Reliance Industries Ltd 2016 (8) TMI 123 - CESTAT MUMBAI where it was held that all these services are eligible for credit. Therefore, the rejection of refund on the ground that the input services do not have nexus with the output service, is not legal or proper. The second ground for rejection is that the appellant has not established one-to-one correlation with the input services and the exports. The Board vide letter DOF.No.334/1/2012-TRU, dated 16-03- 2012 has stated and clarified that the new scheme of refund does not require the correlation between exports and input services used in such exports. The rejection of refund is unjustifiable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim denial by Commissioner (Appeals) based on lack of nexus between input and output services.
2. Refund claim rejection due to absence of one-to-one correlation between input services and exports.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a 100% EOU providing various services, filed a refund claim for unutilized Cenvat credit. The claim was disallowed by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing lack of nexus between input and output services. The appellant contended that services like commercial training, recruitment, courier, and clearing and forwarding agency were essential for their business operations. The Tribunal noted that the definition of input service includes such services and held that the rejection based on lack of nexus was incorrect. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where similar services were deemed eligible for credit, emphasizing the erroneous reliance on a different judgment by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The second ground for rejection was the alleged failure to establish a one-to-one correlation between input services and exports. The Tribunal referenced a Board letter clarifying that such correlation was not required under the new refund scheme. Therefore, the rejection on this ground was deemed unjustifiable. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential reliefs if any. The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly interpreting the definition of input services and adhering to established guidelines for refund claims.