9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1244 - AT - Service Tax100% EOU - Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - rejection on the ground that premises has not been registered - input services or not - Air Travel Agent Services - Rent-a-Cab Services - Outdoor Catering Services - Guest House Services - Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services - non-production of invoices. Non-production of invoices - Held that - Appellant are not contesting the rejection of refund to the tune of ₹ 2,80,582/- with regard to the non-production of invoices. The said rejection is therefore upheld. Rejection on the ground that premises has not been registered - Held that - Subsequently, the appellants have obtained registration for all premises. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Visual Graphics Computing Services India (P) Ltd. 2018 (7) TMI 1394 - MADRAS HIGH COURT had held that refund cannot be rejected - the rejection of refund on the ground that the premises is not registered cannot sustain. Input services - period prior to 01.04.2011 - Air Travel Agent Services - Rent-a-Cab Services - Outdoor Catering Services - Guest House Services - Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services - Held that - The definition of input services during the said period had a wide ambit as it included the terms activities relating to business - the rejection of refund claim on these services is unjustified. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues involved: Refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized credit, rejection of refund on various grounds including non-production of invoices and premises not being registered, eligibility of credit on specific services, reliance on previous decisions, and final determination of refund amount.
Analysis: 1. Refund Claim and Rejection Reasons: The appellant, an Export Oriented Unit with Service Tax Registration under 'Business Auxiliary Service', filed a refund claim for unutilized credit. The Original Authority allowed a portion of the refund but disallowed some. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection on certain issues. The appellants challenged this before the Tribunal. 2. Arguments and Details Presented: The consultants for the appellant presented details of services and grounds for rejection, including pre-registration credit, credit on various services like Air Travel Agent, Rent-a-Cab, Outdoor Catering, Guest House, and Clearing and Forwarding. The total amount of rejection was ?1,32,34,487, with a portion pertaining to non-production of invoices. 3. Legal Submissions and Precedents: The appellant argued that the rejection based on premises not being registered was covered by a High Court decision. They had obtained centralized registration during the period in question. The consultants cited previous decisions supporting credit eligibility on specific services before April 2011. 4. Respondent's Position: The respondent supported the findings in the impugned order, emphasizing the issue of non-registration of premises and lack of clarity on the connection of such premises with the appellant. 5. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the rejection of refund related to non-production of invoices but set aside the rejection based on premises not being registered, as the appellant had subsequently obtained registration for all premises. The rejection of refund on specific services before April 2011 was also overturned based on the wide definition of "input services" during that period and previous favorable decisions. 6. Final Order: The Tribunal upheld the rejection of a specific amount due to non-production of invoices but allowed a refund of ?1,29,43,216. The appeals were partly allowed with consequential reliefs as per law. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision addressed the issues raised by the parties, analyzed legal precedents, and determined the eligibility of the appellant for a partial refund based on the specific grounds presented during the proceedings.
|
