2019 (6) TMI 1325 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - input services - event related services - legal consultancy services - rejection of refund on the ground of nexus - HELD THAT - Going by the definition of input service available in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, legal services are included in the said definition and hence denial of legal service expenses made by the appellant to defend the company or its managements is improper - going by the Order-in-Appeal, tax paid on event management service was held as inadmissible credit despite the fact that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) noted the contention of the appellant in his order that such services were received for organising investment conference at Trident Hotel and appellant had duly explained the reason for holding of such conference that comes within the purview of the decided case laws referred in respect of admissibility of such credits - both those credits are admissible credits for which refund was to be granted as appellant had rightly justified the nexus, which according to the policy/circular was also not required to be established in case of export of services - Refund allowed. Refund claim - rejection also on the ground that Billing address is different in invoice and ST-2 return - HELD THAT - Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that billing address, as found in the invoice was covered in the ST-2 return of the appellant during the relevant time and without looking at valid ST-2 form for the disputed period, the said credit was denied though subsequent to such bill of 2014, Chartered Accountant had taken a new premises in 2015 with new registration. He enclosed ST-2 form in Annexure-G to justify that no variation exists between the invoices of the return filed. Even without accepting the said annexure as admissible piece of additional evidence as objected by the respondent-department, it can be said that the ground is too technical to deny refund since name of the service provider remain unchanged, for which the said credit and consequential refund is held to be admissible - refund allwoed. Refund claim - rejection of refund also on the ground of non description of services - HELD THAT - Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that such services were availed from Aptech Ltd. to provide training on computers to identified employees of the appellant to enhance their management and negotiation skills. But, no evidence is forthcoming that such stand was taken before the lower authorities for which appellant is required to justify the stand before the Commissioner (Appeals) - matter requires reconsideration. Refund claim - Rejection also on the ground of non-submission of invoices - HELD THAT - Appellant had submitted that challan is a valid document under Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to avail CENVAT credit and in cases where service tax was paid under reverse charge mechanism, the same should have been allowed on the strength of valid challans produced by the appellant. However, he conceded that in respect of other services, invoices could not be produced at the time of hearing, for which he produced sample invoices before this Tribunal during the hearing to arrive a right decision - Without verification of those invoices which would amount to mini trail, and without acceptance of those invoices as additional piece of evidence, since those are not in conformity to Rule 23 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, it is considered proper to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-examination of the entitlement of the appellant only in respect of denial of refunds on those CENVAT credit against which valid invoices were not produced before him - matter on remand. The appeals are allowed in-part by way of limited remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) - part appeal allowed in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Partial rejection of refund claim on unutilised CENVAT credits by the Commissioner (Appeals) is challenged by the appellant in four appeals.

Analysis:

1. Rejection of refund on the ground of no nexus between input and output service:
The appellant contended that there was a clear nexus between the event management and legal consultancy services availed and the output services provided by them. The appellant justified the nexus by explaining how the event management services were crucial for showcasing their research capabilities and brand. Referring to various judicial decisions and policy circulars, the appellant argued that the inputs were admissible. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments and held that the credits for event management and legal consultancy services were admissible.

2. Billing address discrepancy in invoice and ST-2 return:
The rejection of CENVAT credit on Chartered Accountant services due to a billing address discrepancy was challenged by the appellant. The appellant provided evidence to show that the billing address discrepancy was not substantial and did not affect the validity of the credit. The Tribunal found the rejection on this ground to be too technical and held that the credit for Chartered Accountant services was admissible.

3. Non-description of services:
The rejection of tax paid on commercial coaching and training services was based on the lack of service details provided. The appellant argued that the services were provided to enhance the skills of identified employees. However, the appellant failed to provide evidence to support this claim before the lower authorities. The Tribunal directed the appellant to justify their stand before the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. Non-submission of invoices:
The denial of several CENVAT credits due to non-submission of invoices was challenged by the appellant. The appellant argued that challans could be considered valid documents under the CENVAT Credit Rules, and in cases of reverse charge mechanism, credits should be allowed based on valid challans. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-examination of the entitlement of the appellant in respect of the denied refunds where valid invoices were not produced.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed in part, with the rejection of CENVAT credits for event-related services, legal consultancy services, and Chartered Accountant services set aside. The matter of rejection of refunds for commercial coaching and training services and non-submission of invoices was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further examination.