2017 (8) TMI 598 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit - Export of Services - case of appellant is that he has produced all the documents along with the reconciliation statement for each quarter but the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly observed that the appellants have failed to provide proper evidence to their availment of credit and their eligibility of refund to the original authority - Held that - this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority to pass a fresh order after considering all the documents which may be produced by the appellant in support of his claim - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial based on lack of nexus between input services and exported services.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the rejection of a refund claim by the Order-in-Original. The appellant, a Private Limited Company under the Software Technology Park scheme, sought a refund of unutilized cenvat credit on service tax paid for IT Enabled Services exported to group companies abroad. The dispute arose from a show-cause notice proposing to reject the refund claim due to a perceived lack of nexus between input services and exported services. The appellant argued that the impugned order misconstrued the definition of 'input service' under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The appellant contended that they provided all necessary documents and reconciliation statements, contrary to the Commissioner's observation. The appellant cited precedents like ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt Ltd and Reliance Industries Ltd to support their claim that the disputed services qualified as 'input services.'

Further Analysis:
The appellant noted that a previous Tribunal decision had remanded the case for a fresh order, emphasizing the need for a fair consideration of the appellant's claim. In light of these arguments, the Tribunal, in its judgment, directed the case to be remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision. The original authority was instructed to review all documents provided by the appellant and consider the cited precedents to determine if the services in question indeed fell within the definition of 'input service.' The original authority was mandated to issue a reasoned order within three months, adhering to principles of natural justice.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the core issue of the refund claim denial based on the nexus between input services and exported services. The appellant's arguments, legal references, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for a fresh order are thoroughly examined, providing a detailed overview of the legal proceedings and the final directive of the Tribunal.