2018 (5) TMI 557 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit - input services - Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service - denial on account of nexus and also on the ground of time bar as well as non-registration under a particular category by the appellant - Held that - Commissioner (A) has wrongly rejected the refund claim on the basis that it is time bar as well as non-registration under a particular category by the appellant - Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has held that Registration not compulsory for refund - also, the Tribunal in so many decisions has considered the issue of nexus and has held that the professional charges and furniture and fixtures are eligible input service. Time limitation - Held that - the relevant date for the purpose of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRCs is received, in cases where refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis - refund cannot be rejected. The present case remanded to the original authority to decide the refund claim of the appellant in view of the law declared by the Tribunal in various decisions cited supra, after examining and verifying various documents which may be produced by the appellant in support of their submissions - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Change in cause title due to reorganization of GST Commissionerate and early hearing and vacation of stay.
2. Appeal against the impugned order modifying the Order-in-Original and allowing the appeal restricted to a specific period.
3. Refund claim filed under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized credit on input services used for exported output services.
4. Rejection of refund claim by the adjudicating authority and partial allowance by the Commissioner (A).
5. Legal sustainability of the impugned order, time bar for refund claim, classification of service, nexus between input and output services, and registration requirements for claiming refund.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue moved a miscellaneous application for a change in cause title and early hearing, which was allowed by the Tribunal. The appeal was taken up for final disposal.
2. The appeal challenged the Commissioner (A)'s modified Order-in-Original, allowing the appeal only for a specific period from 16.5.2008 to September 2008.
3. The appellants, engaged in exporting IT software services, filed a refund claim under CENVAT Credit Rules for unutilized credit on input services. The claim was rejected based on various grounds, leading to the present appeal.
4. The Tribunal heard both parties and examined the records. The appellant argued that the impugned order was unsustainable as it did not consider all facts and laws properly.
5. After considering submissions, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (A) wrongly rejected the refund claim based on time bar and non-registration under a specific category. Various judgments were cited to support the appellant's claims regarding nexus, time bar calculations, and registration requirements for claiming a refund.
6. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and remanded the case to the original authority for reevaluation based on the legal principles discussed and documents provided by the appellant.
7. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order and instructing a fresh decision based on the legal precedents cited.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision based on relevant legal principles and precedents.