2019 (6) TMI 453 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - export of services - rejection of refund claims on the ground that the services rendered by the Appellant is not an export services - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - period October 2008 to March 2009 and October 2009 to September 2009 - HELD THAT - For the period from April 2009 to September 2009 when the matter reached this Tribunal the Tribunal held that refund was admissible to them. Further for the period October 2010 to March 2012 the Adjudicating authority initially not allowed the refund claims but later the claim has been held to be admissible by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Also it is stated during the course of hearing that the department thereafter from April 2012 to March 2017 allowed the refund claims considering the services are exported. On going through the earlier refund claims and also subsequent refund claims allowing cash refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 the department has accepted that the service rendered by the Appellant to Qualcomm USA are export services in terms of Rule 3(iii) of Export of Service Rules, 2005. Also no evidence has been placed before us indicating that on the said issue appeal has been filed against these orders by the Revenue and ultimately it is held to be not an export services by any Appellate forum. Therefore denial of cash refund of accumulated credit due to export of service for the interregnum period is unsustainable. Territorial Jurisdiction - Whether the CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on input services used in their Delhi office is eligible to credit at their Mumbai office? - HELD THAT - The credit of the input services availed at their Delhi unit which was denied on the ground that no output service is provided from Delhi has been held to be incorrect and consequently cash refund on this count has been held to be admissible by this Tribunal in their own case M/S QUALCOMM INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX MUMBAI-I 2015 (6) TMI 1004 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Credit cannot be denied. Refund clam - CENVAT credit on input services - Rent a cab service - Convention service - club or association service - construction service etc. - HELD THAT - The credit on the input services viz. Rent a cab service convention service club or association service used in rendering output service availed prior to 01.4.2011 held to input service within the definition of input service prescribed under Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 - reliance placed in the case of M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX LTU MUMBAI 2016 (8) TMI 123 - CESTAT MUMBAI - credit allowed. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the services rendered qualify as export services for claiming refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit.
2. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on input services used in Delhi office at the Mumbai office.
3. Admissibility of credit on specific input services like Rent a cab service, convention service, club or association service.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Appellant provided services to Qualcomm, USA and claimed refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Appellant contended that the services qualified as export services under Export of Services Rules, 2005. The Tribunal noted that previous refund claims were allowed, indicating acceptance of services as export. No appeal by Revenue against this was shown. Hence, denial of refund was deemed unsustainable, and Appellant's contention was upheld.

Issue 2:
Regarding the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on input services used in Delhi office at the Mumbai office, the Tribunal found denial of credit incorrect. It was held that the denial was untenable, and cash refund on this count was deemed admissible based on a previous case involving the same Appellant.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal considered the admissibility of credit on specific input services like Rent a cab service, convention service, club or association service. These services were held to be covered under the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, based on various Tribunal judgments. Therefore, the credit on these input services was deemed admissible.

In conclusion, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. The Tribunal found no merit in the decisions and ruled in favor of the Appellant based on the analysis of the issues involved.