2018 (9) TMI 1212 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 - input services - insurance services - hotel accommodation invoices - denial of refund claims on the ground of nexus - Held that - It is found that for the period pertaining to 15.12.2013 to 14.02.2014, two insurance coverage were obtained by the appellant and the conditions available on the overleaf of the insurance bond reflected that one is taken for property damage and other one is taken against legal protection that may arise due to dishonesty of employees, loss of documents, cover for defamation as well as intellectual property infringement made - Further, concerning hotel accommodation, the bills produced by the appellant indicate that one Prashant Reddy was accommodated in a Bangalore based hotel for four days, and the ld. Counsel submits that it was in connection with the business of the company which could have established in having given the chance to the appellant to substantiate the same before the adjudicating authority. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in terms of above observations - Matter remanded.

Summary

Issues: Denial of refund claims challenging before Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.

The appellant, a market research agency service provider to foreign customers, sought refunds post July 2012 under the negative list and Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. Refunds were partially allowed and rejected without explaining the nexus between input and output services. The respondent department considered the credit inadmissible. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed a common order against 12 original orders, addressing contentions and grounds of rejection related to cenvat credit admissibility. The denial of refund was based on various grounds, including services not meeting the definition of "input services," lack of nexus with output services, delayed vendor payments, and missing service receiver addresses.

The Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept the appellant's submission that exporting all services negated the need to establish a nexus between input and output services, despite a previous Tribunal finding supporting this. The appellant, during the hearing, provided invoices to establish the nexus and cited case laws to support their argument. The invoices showed insurance coverage for property damage and legal protection, as well as hotel accommodation for business purposes. The Appellate Tribunal can direct re-adjudication by the authority to thoroughly scrutinize documents and allow the appellant to substantiate their claim on refund admissibility. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, requiring the appellant to produce relevant documents for review.