2017 (11) TMI 1105 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - input services - Air Travel Agents service - Real Estate Agents services - Supply of Tangible Goods services - Business Consultant s Service - Club or Association service - Technical & Scientific Consultancy Services - Held that - Since all these services in view of the various case-laws have been held to be an input service , therefore these services are input services and it has a nexus with the output services exported - I remand the case back to the adjudicating authority to examine the claim of the appellant afresh after considering the fact that the impugned services are input services in terms of Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification 27/2012 dated 18.06.2012; Remand of matters by Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication; Classification of input services as 'input services' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed refund claims seeking refund of unutilized cenvat credit paid on input services used for providing exported output services during specific periods. The original authority partially sanctioned the refund and rejected it for certain input services. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matters back to the original authority for fresh adjudication, leading to the filing of three appeals by the appellant against the impugned order.

2. The appellant argued that the impugned order lacked proper consideration of previous findings and disallowed credit/refund in a perfunctory manner. The appellant contended that the input services in dispute were directly related to the output services and should be classified as 'input services' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Detailed arguments were presented with case-law references to support the nexus between input services and output services.

3. The Assistant Commissioner defended the impugned order, emphasizing the need for the appellant to provide supporting documents before the adjudicating authority. After hearing both parties and reviewing the record, the Judicial Member found that while the impugned order remanded the case, it lacked specific findings on the classification of input services. Considering the case-law cited, the Judicial Member held that the disputed services qualified as 'input services' with a nexus to the exported output services.

4. Consequently, the Judicial Member allowed all three appeals by way of remand, directing the adjudicating authority to reexamine the appellant's claim in light of the identified input services' classification. The decision was based on the determination that the disputed services met the criteria of 'input services' as defined in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 26/07/2017.