Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (4) TMI 1174 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
1. Refund of accumulated unutilised Cenvat credit of duty for post removal services.
2. Applicability of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 vs. Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007.
3. Time-limit aspect under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007 for filing refund claims.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund of accumulated unutilised Cenvat credit of duty for post removal services
The appellants, engaged in the manufacture and export of cotton yarn, claimed a refund of accumulated unutilised Cenvat credit of duty for services like Port Services, Courier Services, and GTA Services. The Revenue objected to the refund claims, stating that these services were post removal services and not covered under the definition of "Input Services" under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Assistant Commissioner observed that although these services were eligible for refund under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007, the refund claims were beyond the limitation period specified in the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, rejecting the appellants' argument that the refund was claimed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and not under the said notification.

Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 5 vs. Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007
The appellants contended that their refund claims were filed under Rule 5, allowing the refund of unutilised credit. They argued that the services in question, such as Port Services, were cenvatable in case of exports, citing various Tribunal decisions. The Revenue, however, maintained that the refund claims were made under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007, and not under Rule 5. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority's insistence on applying the notification instead of Rule 5 was incorrect. The Tribunal held that the refunds were indeed filed under Rule 5, and the alternative availability of the notification for deciding the issue was not appropriate. The Tribunal allowed the appeals on legal issues and remanded the case to the original authority for further examination of documentary evidence.

Issue 3: Time-limit aspect under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007
The Revenue argued that the refund claims did not meet the time-limit aspect specified in Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007, leading to the rejection of the claims. However, the Tribunal found that the refunds were admissible under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, irrespective of the extension of the time limit in the said notification. The Tribunal emphasized that the refunds should be considered under Rule 5 and directed the original authority to review the documentary evidence provided by the appellants for further consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal clarified the applicability of Rule 5 for refund claims and directed a reevaluation based on the evidence presented, emphasizing that the refunds were valid under Rule 5 and not subject to the limitations of Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates