2017 (6) TMI 862 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - various input services - air travel services - Business Support services - Insurance Auxiliary services - Interior Designing consultancy services - Management, maintenance of repair services - Online data Retrieval and Access services - renting of immovable property services - rejection on the ground that the services cannot be considered as input services as per the definition of Rule 2 (l) of CCR 2004 - Held that - there is no dispute as to the fact that the respondent is engaged in export of services for which he is availing the benefit of services provided by service provider and availed CENVAT credit of the service tax paid by such service provider - When all the conditions of the Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 are satisfied, there appears to be no scope for disallowing CENVAT credit on selected services and holding its refund ineligible - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing supplementary orders before the Tribunal, rejection of refund claim for service tax on input services, nexus of Cenvat Credit to export of services, eligibility of various input services for refund under Rule 5 of CCR, limitation issue in filing refund application.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to applications filed for condonation of delay in filing supplementary orders before the Tribunal. The first appellate authority disposed off the Orders-in-Appeal by a common order, and the Revenue timely filed an appeal. The Tribunal allowed the applications for condonation of delay, directing the Registry to list the appeals for final disposal. The appeals were filed against Orders-in-Appeal rejecting refund claims for service tax on input services. The respondent, engaged in exporting services, claimed refund for various input services. The adjudicating authority rejected the claims, but the first appellate authority set aside the order, allowing the appeals.

The issue revolved around the nexus of Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant to the export of services. The Revenue contested the impugned order, arguing that the services were exported but the credit had no connection to the export. The appellant's representative cited precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of the appellants, challenging the findings of the first appellate authority. However, upon careful consideration and perusal of records, the Tribunal found that the respondent was indeed engaged in exporting services and availing Cenvat credit on service tax paid by the service provider, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order was correct.

The Tribunal analyzed the eligibility of various input services for refund under Rule 5 of CCR. It was noted that the first appellate authority correctly concluded that when all conditions of the relevant notification were met, there was no scope for disallowing CENVAT credit on selected services. The Tribunal referred to specific cases and judgments to support the eligibility of certain services as input services. The first appellate authority also addressed the limitation issue, stating that refund claims filed beyond one year from the date of realization were hit by limitation. Based on these findings and legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned order to be legally sound, supported by clear findings of the first appellate authority and established legal principles. The judgment upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeals, providing a detailed analysis of the issues involved and the relevant legal framework.

(Order dictated and pronounced in open court on 29/05/2017)