2017 (6) TMI 799 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim of CENVAT credit - banking and financial services - cleaning activity - consulting engineering - outdoor catering - air travel agents - printer rental charges - reinforcement sprips lab charges - projector hire charges - business auxiliary service - management consultancy service - denial on the ground of nexus - Held that - the various decisions rendered by the higher judicial fora where all the services have been specifically held to be input services - In the case of CCE vs. Ultratech Cements 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the Bombay High Court held that the definition of input service is very wide and not only covers services used directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products but also includes other services which have direct nexus with the manufacture of final products. The appeals of the appellant subject to verification by the original authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund eligibility for various input services under CENVAT Credit Rules.

Analysis:
The appellant filed appeals against an order partly allowing refund claims for input services. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing aircraft components and providing engineering design services, sought refunds for services used but not credited under CENVAT Credit Rules. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claims, stating lack of nexus between services and export goods manufacturing. The Commissioner (A) partly allowed the appeals, leading to the present appeals. The appellant argued the rejection lacked legal basis, citing Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004, defining "input service." The appellant referenced the broad interpretation of input services by higher courts, emphasizing services' direct nexus with manufacturing. The appellant provided case laws supporting each service's eligibility as an input service.

The appellant's consultant contended that the impugned order's rejection of certain input services lacked legal merit and contradicted established judicial interpretations of input services. The consultant referenced Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004, defining "input service," and highlighted previous court decisions broadening the scope of services eligible as input services. The consultant presented case laws supporting the appellant's claim for refund on various input services, demonstrating their direct relevance to the manufacturing process and export activities.

The learned consultant argued that the impugned order's refusal to grant refunds for specific input services was legally unsound and contrary to established interpretations of input services under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. The consultant cited previous court rulings that had expanded the definition of input services to include services directly linked to manufacturing processes. By providing case laws supporting each service's eligibility as an input service, the consultant aimed to demonstrate the legitimacy of the refund claims and their direct connection to the manufacturing and export activities undertaken by the appellant.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal found in favor of the appellant, citing the various decisions and case laws presented by the appellant's consultant. The tribunal overturned the impugned order and allowed the appeals, subject to verification by the original authority. The decision highlighted the importance of establishing a direct nexus between input services and the manufacturing process for claiming refunds under the CENVAT Credit Rules.

This summary provides a detailed analysis of the legal judgment concerning the eligibility of refund claims for various input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing the interpretation of "input service" and the requirement of a direct nexus between services and manufacturing activities for claiming refunds.