2017 (9) TMI 1000 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - rejection on the ground that the services on which they have availed cenvat credit on Professional Indemnity Insurance Services have no direct nexus with output service - Held that - The Revenue fairly agreed that no proceedings were initiated against the respondent for denial of cenvat credit on Professional Indemnity Insurance, as no proceedings in this case for denial of cenvat credit initiated against the respondent, therefore, at the stage of filing refund claim of un-utilized cenvat credit in their cenvat credit account cannot be challenged - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against refund claim rejection based on Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) services' nexus with output service for cenvat credit.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (A) allowing the refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, related to unutilized cenvat credit. The refund claim was partially sanctioned, but a portion amounting to &8377; 16,79,753 was rejected due to the lack of a direct nexus between the Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) services and the output service. The respondent appealed the rejection, leading to the current appeal before the tribunal.

The argument presented was that the PII service, for which the cenvat credit was availed, did not have a direct nexus with the output services provided by the respondent. The appellant contended that since the activity related to business was deleted from the statute post-01.04.2011, they were not entitled to claim the refund for services availed before this date. The issue was considered to be narrow, focusing on the period post-01.04.2011, leading to the appeal being taken up for disposal on its merits.

During the hearing, the argument centered on whether the respondent was rightfully denied the cenvat credit for the PII services. The Revenue acknowledged that no proceedings had been initiated against the respondent for the denial of cenvat credit on PII services. As no such proceedings were initiated, it was concluded that challenging the refund claim for unutilized cenvat credit, which was not previously contested, was not valid. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the impugned order of the Ld. Commissioner (A).

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the decision to allow the refund claim related to unutilized cenvat credit, emphasizing the lack of merit in the Revenue's appeal due to the absence of prior proceedings challenging the availed cenvat credit on Professional Indemnity Insurance services.