2017 (5) TMI 54 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - refund claim - rejection on the ground that the said input services are ineligible for the CENVAT credit - Held that - The period involved in all these appeals is from April 2012 to December 2012. After 2012 Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 has undergone amendment by which the word used for export of goods, used as intermediate product; used for providing output services has been deleted. Therefore, the authorities below have wrongly denied the refund - appellants having paid service tax on the various input services used for providing output services which are exported, they are eligible for refund under Rules 5 of CCR, 2004 if other conditions are satisfied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appeals were filed against the rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules related to export of Information Technology Software Services (ITSS) by Hundred Percent Export Oriented Unit (EOU).

2. Refund Claims: The appellants exported services and claimed refund of accumulated CENVAT credit periodically for input services used in providing ITSS. While most refund claims were granted, some were rejected on the basis of ineligibility of certain input services for CENVAT credit.

3. Appeals and Rejections: Appeals were made to the Commissioner of Customs against the rejection of refund claims for three quarters in 2012. The Commissioner upheld the rejection, leading to further appeals.

4. Details of Denial: The denial of refund for specific input services such as management consultancy, courier, clearing & forwarding, membership renewal, insurance, telephone, consulting engineer, general insurance, and business support services were detailed with corresponding amounts.

5. Arguments: The appellant's counsel argued that the denied input services were essential for providing output services and highlighted the specific purposes for which each service was availed.

6. Contentions: The respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order that led to the denial of the refund claims.

7. Judgment: The presiding member analyzed the submissions and amendments to Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules post-2012. It was concluded that the denial of refund was unjustified as the input services were used for providing exported output services. Consequently, the rejection of refund was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with possible consequential reliefs.

This comprehensive analysis outlines the legal judgment regarding the refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, highlighting the issues, background, details of denial, arguments presented, contentions made, and the final judgment delivered by the presiding member.