9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 797 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - relevant date - What should be the relevant date for filing the refund u/r 5 / N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012? - Held that - As per the Larger Bench decision in the case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE , it was held that in case of refund under Rule 5, the relevant date is the end of the quarter wherein the FIRC is received - In the facts of the present case, the refund for the period October 2012 to December 2012, the refund was submitted on 30.9.2013, which shows that the refund was filed within one year from the end of the quarter. Therefore, it is well within the prescribed time as provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - refund allowed. Refund claim - export of services - input services - general insurance services - real estate agent s services - stock broker services - online information and data access or retrieved services - club or association services - sponsorship services - nexus with export of services - Held that - All the services disputed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are admissible input services, hence the credit is available. The adjudicating authority, without issuance of SCN as regards the admissibility of the input service, rejected the refund which is not permissible, but the Revenue is of the view that the credit is not admissible. The first step is to a show cause notice invoking Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for denial of the cenvat credit. Then only the refund can be rejected which was not done. Obviously the refund cannot be rejected by disputing the admissibility of the input services. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Relevant date for filing refund under Rule 5 / Notification 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012. 2. Whether specific input services are eligible for refund under Rule 5 and have nexus with the export of services. Analysis: 1. Relevant Date for Refund Filing: The Tribunal clarified that the relevant date for filing a refund under Rule 5 is the end of the quarter when the FIRC is received. In the case at hand, the refund for the period of October 2012 to December 2012 was submitted on 30.9.2013, falling within one year from the end of the quarter. This adherence to the prescribed timeline under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. 2. Eligibility of Input Services for Refund: a. General Insurance Services: The Tribunal found that comprehensive insurance covering premises, assets, and employee mediclaim is essential for a business entity, thus directly linked to providing output services. Previous judgments supported the admissibility of credit on general insurance. b. Real Estate Agent's Services: Payment of brokerage for CEO accommodation, borne by the company, was deemed necessary and directly linked to business operations, in line with previous Tribunal decisions. c. Stock Broker Services: Valuation of company shares for investment banking purposes was considered integral to business activities, supported by past judgments. d. Online Information and Data Access Services: Subscription for conducting business activities was recognized as directly contributing to output services, making it eligible for credit. e. Club or Association Services: Membership in business associations facilitates networking and business promotion, thus qualifying as an input service. f. Sponsorship Services: Sponsorship for business-related activities, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was seen as directly related to the business, meeting the criteria for an input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal concluded that all disputed services were admissible input services, emphasizing the need for a show cause notice before rejecting refunds based on input service admissibility. Failure to follow this process rendered the rejection impermissible, as highlighted in previous judgments. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, while the assessee's appeal was allowed, with the stay application of the Revenue disposed of.
|
