2017 (1) TMI 1228 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - Refund claim of cenvat credit - input services - Car Hire Charges - Foreign Travelling - Freight Outward - Fuel Interstate - Rent Charges - rejection on the ground that nexus between input services and manufactured goods was not provided and the appellant failed to produce the document in support of his claim - Held that - I find that as far as Car Hire Charges, Foreign Travel and Freight Outward and Rental Charges and Transportation Charges are concerned, they fall in the definition of input service . But in order to prove that appellant has incurred these expenditure, the appellant is required to produce the documents in support of the same before the original authority who will verify the same and thereafter will allow the refund as per law - In view of this, I am of the considered opinion that this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority with a direction to examine all the documents which may be filed by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order partially allowing refund of unutilized cenvat credit on specific services.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order partially allowing the refund claim of the appellant related to service tax paid on various services. The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in pharmaceutical manufacturing, sought a refund for the period April 2010 to June 2010. The Commissioner allowed a partial refund of Rs. 2,67,132 but rejected Rs. 8,68,528 due to lack of nexus between input services and manufactured goods and failure to provide supporting documents. The appellant contended that the impugned order did not appreciate the definition of 'input services' under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The appellant argued for the eligibility of refund on services like Car Hire Charges, Foreign Travel, Freight Outward, Rental Charges, and Transportation Charges, emphasizing their importance in business activities and production processes. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support the claim.

The AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order, opposing the appellant's arguments. The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and held that certain services like Car Hire Charges, Foreign Travel, Freight Outward, Rental Charges, and Transportation Charges fell within the definition of 'input services' based on Tribunal decisions. However, the Tribunal emphasized the need for the appellant to provide supporting documents to prove the incurrence of these expenditures. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the original authority for a detailed examination of the documents submitted by the appellant. The original authority was directed to verify the documents, afford the appellant an opportunity to be heard, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with Tribunal decisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment highlighted the importance of providing supporting documents to substantiate refund claims on specific services falling under the definition of 'input services.' The case was remanded back to the original authority for further examination and a reasoned decision based on the documents provided by the appellant.