2017 (2) TMI 574 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - works contract services and various other input services - denial on the ground of nexus of input service with the output services - Held that - It is brought out from the records placed that the said services have been considered and analysed by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case M/s Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner C.C.E & ST, Hyderabad 2016 (6) TMI 720 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , where the refund was allowed - Further the adjudicating authority also for a different period has allowed the refund in respect of the very same services - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for unutilized CENVAT Credit amounting to ?21,62,961 for the period October 2012 to December 2012 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority granted a refund of ?13,51,059 and rejected the refund for the remaining amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant's consultant argued that the lower authorities had based their rejection on a judgment in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. vs. Commissioner. The consultant detailed various input services and their nexus with the output services, along with the quantum of refund sought for each service. The appellant provided a table listing services such as Renting of Immovable Property Services, Telecommunication Services, Manpower Recruitment Services, among others, for which the refund was sought.

The consultant highlighted that the Tribunal had previously allowed a refund for similar services in the appellant's case for a different period. Additionally, an adjudicating authority had recently granted a refund for the same services. On the department's behalf, the Assistant Commissioner reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal noted that the services in question had been previously analyzed in the appellant's case and that the adjudicating authority had allowed refunds for the same services for a different period. Citing previous decisions and the discussions in the Final Order, the Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for a refund. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs deemed necessary. The order was pronounced and dictated in open court by Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. Member (Judicial).