2017 (1) TMI 613 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - refund claim - Consultant Engineer Service - Information Technology Software Services - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with N/N. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006 - denial on the ground that the invoice is issued to the unregistered premises of the appellant - Held that - As per Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, there is no requirement that the premises of the service recipient has to be registered. Therefore, the denial of refund on this ground is unjustified - appellant entitled for refund for this part - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on various grounds.

Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU registered under STPI Scheme, filed a refund claim for unutilized Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services for providing output services. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned a partial refund and rejected a portion of the claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original authority on some issues, leading to the appellant's appeal disputing the denial of refund/credit. The appellant contested an amount of ?6,78,883 out of the total disputed sum of ?6,83,882.

One reason for rejection was that input service invoices were addressed to an unregistered premises of the appellant. The appellant argued that Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 does not mandate the recipient's premises to be registered, only requiring service provider's registration details on the invoice. The appellant also justified availing Business Support, Business Auxiliary, Management Consultants, Commercial Training, and other services essential for providing output services.

The appellant maintained proper disclosure of credit details, emphasizing the principle that there should not be different standards for availing credit and refund. The appellant's consultant cited precedent and circulars to support this argument. The AR, however, supported the disallowance of credit.

After considering the submissions, the Judge found the denial of refund based on unregistered premises unjustified. Services like Management Consultants, Commercial Training, and others were deemed eligible for refund as they were integral to providing output services. The Judge allowed the appeal partly, setting aside the impugned order and granting refund except for a minor sum of ?4,999.

In conclusion, the appellant succeeded in part, with the Judge ruling in favor of refund for most of the disputed amount, except for a negligible portion. The decision emphasized the importance of essential input services for providing output services and clarified the requirements for refund eligibility based on the relevant legal provisions and precedents.