2017 (7) TMI 801 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT credit - rejection on the ground that few services of which refund claims are filed cannot be co-related - Held that - the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order has categorically recorded that the CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on these services are eligible and refund needs to be allowed, based on the various decisions of the Tribunal. The impugned services have been held admissible for credit/refund in several pronouncements. Following judicial discipline, the matter pertaining to the rejected input services is decided. In terms of the findings, the denial of credit and therefore, of the refund, is set aside in respect of all items - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Refund of service tax paid on various services utilized for rendering exported output services.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Refund Claims: The appeal pertains to the refund of service tax paid on services utilized for rendering exported output services. The adjudicating authority partially allowed and rejected the refund claims, stating that some services were not directly attributable to exported output services. The First Appellate Authority detailed each service and granted relief, which the Revenue contested, specifically focusing on Event Management, Business Auxiliary & Support, and Management/Business Consultant services.

2. Event Management Services: The First Appellate Authority found that the Event Management services were consumed for organizing events to enhance efficiency, citing precedents like Coca Cola (India) and others. The denial of credit/refund was deemed legally unsustainable, and the order was set aside with consequential relief, holding the services admissible for credit and refund.

3. Business Auxiliary & Support Services: Regarding Business Auxiliary & Support services, the First Appellate Authority noted their role in the effective functioning of the organization and their relation to the provision of output services. Precedents such as Dell International Services and others supported the admissibility of these services for credit/refund, leading to the rejection of the denial of credit and refund with consequential relief.

4. Management/Business Consultant Services: The services of Management/Business Consultants were availed for various business processes and specific functions, aiding in business management. Precedents like Novozymes South Asia Pvt. Ltd. and others supported the admissibility of these services for credit/refund. The denial of credit and refund was set aside with consequential relief, as the services were found to be directly related to the output services.

5. Conclusion: The Tribunal, after considering submissions and records, upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority, finding the appeal filed by the Revenue devoid of merits and consequently rejected. The Tribunal affirmed the admissibility of the services in question for credit and refund, based on legal precedents and their direct nexus to the rendered output services.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the meticulous consideration of each service category and the legal basis for allowing the refund claims, ultimately leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.