2017 (10) TMI 1038 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - input services - clearing and forwarding service - construction service - Rule 5 of CCR - Held that - the Tribunal in appellant s own case 2017 (8) TMI 513 - CESTAT MUMBAI allowed them credit of the service tax paid on clearing and forwarding service and for construction service used for maintenance and repair - refund allowed. However, the appellant are not entitled to get refund in respect of the services availed prior to the period for which they have claimed the refund. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules for construction service and clearing and forwarding service; Time limit for disallowance of cenvat credit; Refund claim for services not availed during the claimed period.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules for construction service and clearing and forwarding service. The Assistant Manager argued that the services qualified as input services based on previous Tribunal orders in the appellant's own case.

2. The Assistant Manager highlighted that the refund claim rejection was based on the ground that the services did not qualify as input services. However, previous Tribunal orders allowed credit for similar services used by the appellant. He also argued against the disallowance of cenvat credit for invoices older than one year, stating that there is no prescribed time limit for such disallowance in law.

3. The respondent relied on a previous order involving Renfro India Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that credit for services must be availed within the period for which the refund is sought or denied.

4. The presiding Member reviewed the submissions and noted that previous Tribunal orders in the appellant's case allowed credit for similar services. Relying on these decisions, the ground for rejection of the claim was deemed unsustainable.

5. The Member referred to the case of Renfro India Pvt. Ltd., where it was observed that prior to a specific date, refund of credit for "input services" was not permitted under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Consequently, the appellant was found not entitled to a refund for services availed prior to the claimed period.

6. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed based on the above analysis, and the decision was pronounced in court on a specific date.