2017 (3) TMI 16 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - Cenvat Credit - Change in the name of assessee - Business Auxiliary Service and Business Support Services - Notification 5/2006 NT dated 14.04.2006 - Held that - I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the appellant has given sufficient documentary evidence and the decisions of the Tribunal in support of his claim. As far as first ground on which cenvat credit was denied is totally wrong because the change of name does not make the appellant ineligible to claim cenvat credit and more so it has been informed to the Department well in time. Secondly, with regard to Management, Maintenance or Repair Service, the lower authority has wrongly considered it as an export of service whereas it is import of service as evidenced by the Service Tax Returns - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on company name change, eligibility for refund for services provided, denial of credit based on turnover differences, denial of credit due to missing service provider registration number on invoices, denial of credit for car parking and photography services.

Analysis:
The appellant, a service provider, filed refund claims for input services used in exported output services. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim citing company name change and discrepancies in turnover. The Commissioner upheld the rejection, citing name differences, ineligible services, turnover inconsistencies, and missing service provider registration numbers. The appellant argued that the name change did not affect eligibility, as the company identity remained the same, supported by legal precedents. The appellant also contended that services provided were not exported but imported, and turnover differences were for accounting consistency, providing evidence and reconciliations. The appellant challenged the denial of credit due to missing registration numbers, citing circulars and legal decisions supporting their position. The appellant further argued that car parking and photography services were essential for business operations, supported by legal authorities.

The Appellate Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable, noting the appellant's submissions, evidence, and legal precedents. The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities' reasoning on various grounds. Firstly, the change in company name did not render the appellant ineligible for credit, especially since the name change was duly informed to the Department. Secondly, the services provided were not exports but imports, as evidenced by tax returns. The Tribunal also held that denial of credit for missing registration numbers was unjustified when tax payments were made. Additionally, the Tribunal deemed car parking and photography services as essential inputs for business operations, overturning the denial of credit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the case for reevaluation based on the appellant's submissions, documents, and legal precedents cited. Both appeals were allowed for remand, emphasizing a thorough examination of all relevant documents and compliance with legal principles.