2018 (5) TMI 1529 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit - input services - amendment in definition of input services - architectural consultancy services - denial on the ground that the said service falls under Exclusion clause - Held that - the services being architect services does not fall under exclusion to the definition of input service as per rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, as the said exclusion is in respect of execution of works contract. The period involved in this case is January 2015 to March 2015 and the definition has undergone a change on 01.04.2011 and subsequently again on 01.07.2012 wherein the specific exclusion is only for the service portion in execution of works contract and construction services listed under Clause B of Section 66E of the Finance Act which does not include the architectural services. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claims on unutilised CENVAT credit for input services used in exported output services.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the rejection of refund claims on CENVAT credit for input services used in exported output services. The 1st Appellate Authority allowed some refund claims but denied others, leading to the appeal. The specific services for which refund was contested included architectural design consultancy, insurance for motor vehicles, out-of-pocket expenses for Chartered Accountants, services of Nagadi Consultants Pvt Ltd, and service tax for liaisoning with authorities for environmental clearances. The 1st Appellate Authority remanded the matter for verification and ruling on admissibility for all services except architectural consultancy services, which the appellant argued were incorrectly considered as works contract services.

The findings of the 1st Appellate Authority regarding architectural consultancy services were disputed by the appellant. The Authority had denied CENVAT credit and service tax refund based on the nature of the contract with M/s Edifice Consultants Pvt Ltd. The Authority deemed the contract to cover various construction-related activities, excluding it from credit/refund eligibility. However, upon examining the purchase order and invoices, it was found that the services were primarily for architectural expertise in building construction, not a works contract. The appellant highlighted that architectural services do not fall under the exclusion to the definition of input service as per CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The appellant's argument was supported by the changes in definitions over time, emphasizing that architectural services were not explicitly excluded from refund eligibility.

In conclusion, the appellate authority allowed the appeal concerning the rejection of refund claims for architectural consultancy services. The impugned order was set aside for this specific issue, granting the appellant relief. The decision was pronounced in open court at the conclusion of the hearing.