2017 (8) TMI 268 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - input services - Air Travel Agent Service - Business Auxiliary Service - Business Support Service - Chartered Accountants Service - Convention Service - Event Management Service - Held that - the aforesaid services has been held to be Input Services by the judgments of this Tribunal referred to against each of the said services - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order denying refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 based on the definition of 'Input Service' under 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) - Ahmedabad, rejecting the refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. The appellant provided taxable services under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) and Management or Business Consultancy Service (MCS), exporting the entire Output Services during the relevant period. The dispute arose when the authorities alleged that the Input Services used by the appellant, such as Air Travel Agent Service, Business Auxiliary Service, Business Support Service, Chartered Accountants Service, Convention Service, and Event Management Service, did not meet the definition of 'Input Service' under 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

The appellant argued that the services in question had been recognized as Input Services in various judgments of the Tribunal, citing specific cases for each service. The appellant contended that they were entitled to Cenvat Credit on the Input Services used in providing Output Services and, consequently, the refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 for the exported services. Additionally, the appellant argued that the absence of registration numbers on vendor invoices should not be a reason to deny Cenvat Credit, especially when rectified subsequently, referring to a relevant Tribunal judgment supporting this stance.

On considering the arguments and the precedents cited, the Tribunal found that the services in question had indeed been recognized as Input Services in previous judgments. Therefore, the Tribunal disagreed with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that these services lacked a nexus with the Output Services exported by the appellant, which was the basis for denying the cash refund of accumulated credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, emphasizing the importance of recognizing the services as Input Services based on established precedents and rejecting the denial of Cenvat Credit for the accumulated credit on exported services under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004.