2017 (7) TMI 763 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - refund of CENVAT credit availed on input services - denial on the ground that these are not eligible input services - Held that - there is no dispute as to the fact that the Respondent is an exporter of services and is registered with the Authorities. There is no dispute also that the Respondent had been exporting the services and filed refund claims - The jurisdictional Bench of the Tribunal has held in a catena of judgments, that the impugned services are eligible input services, and thus eligible for refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund of CENVAT credit on input services used by a 100% EOU for remanufacturing and exporting goods.

Detailed Analysis:
The issue pertains to the refund of CENVAT credit on input services used by a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) for remanufacturing and exporting goods. The Revenue argued that services like Business Support Services, Chartered Accountant Services, Management Maintenance and Repair Services, and Membership or Subscription to Periodical Services were not used in relation to the goods remanufactured and exported by the respondent. The Respondent, an exporter of services registered with the Authorities, had filed refund claims for the CENVAT credit availed on input services. The 1st Appellate Authority rejected the refund claims citing a lack of nexus between the input and output services.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that there was no dispute regarding the Respondent's status as an exporter of services and their registration. The Tribunal noted that the 1st Appellate Authority did not provide cogent reasons for concluding the absence of a nexus between the input and output services. Referring to various judgments, the Tribunal held that services like Business Support service, Chartered Accountant Services, Management Maintenance or Repair Service, and Membership or Subscription to Periodicals were eligible input services for refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal set aside the findings of the lower authority and allowed the credit on disputed services where the description was not available.

The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, stating that the 1st Appellate Authority's conclusion was correct based on the Tribunal's decisions. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the legality and correctness of the impugned orders. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing a clear nexus between input and output services for claiming CENVAT credit refunds, as per the relevant rules and precedents.