2018 (11) TMI 925 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that - In the absence of the nature of the services provided by the service provider, it was not possible for Authorities to examine as to whether the service in question provided by M/s Reliance Communication was input services or not - in the interest of justice appellant should be given a further chance to establish the nature of the services received by them, we remand the said part of the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority. Refund to the extent of ₹ 24,48,930/- stands rejected on the ground that the services procured by them from their own overseas group M/s Markit Group Ltd., London does not stand specified in the invoices and the tax paid by them and there is no relation to their output services - Held that - The appellant has paid the service tax on the said activity on reverse charge basis and has produced the challans of that effect. In such a scenario, it cannot be held that the appellant was not entitled to the credit and the consequent refund of the same in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules - refund allowed. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim on grounds related to invoices not mentioning the appellant's address.
2. Rejection of refund claim due to lack of service description in invoices issued by a service provider.
3. Rejection of refund claim for services procured from an overseas group due to unspecified services in invoices.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, filed a refund claim for Cenvat credit of duty earned on input services. Part of the claim was rejected as the invoices did not mention the appellant's address. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the receipt or utilization of the input services. Citing various Tribunal decisions, it held that the objection based on the address in the invoices was unsustainable. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating they were entitled to the refund amount of approximately ?18,030.

2. Another part of the refund claim was rejected as the invoices from M/s Reliance Communication Ltd. did not specify the description of services provided. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of service descriptions for verification but allowed the appellant a chance to establish the nature of services received. The matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for further examination based on additional evidence to be provided by the appellant. The rejected amount was approximately ?81,348.

3. A significant portion of the refund was rejected as the services procured from the overseas group, M/s Markit Group Ltd., London, were not specified in the invoices. The invoices described the services as "Business Support Service." The Tribunal found that the Original Adjudicating Authority's factual finding was incorrect. It noted that the appellant had paid service tax on a reverse charge basis and provided challans as proof. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim amounting to approximately ?24,48,930.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and partly allowed and partly remanded the appeal, ensuring that the appellant received the entitled refund amounts based on the legal provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper documentation and descriptions in invoices for the refund process, emphasizing the need for clarity and compliance with procedural aspects in such cases.