9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 201 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of CENVAT Credit - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - period from October 2016 to December 2016 and January 2017 to March 2017 - Room/Laundry Service - HELD THAT - The issue has been settled in the case of M/S ONE ADVERTISING COMMUNICATION SERVICES LIMITED VERSUS CST AHMEDABAD. 2012 (5) TMI 219 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD where credit on similar services allowed - appellant is entitled to refund on the service. Insurance and AMC charges - HELD THAT - The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS, GUNTUR VERSUS CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD. 2009 (3) TMI 136 - CESTAT, BANGALORE where it was held that these services have been received or rendered only in relation to the manufacture of final products and the credit was allowed - appellant entitled to credit on such services. APR Certification/CA Services - HELD THAT - The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM VERSUS ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD. 2010 (2) TMI 532 - CESTAT, BANGALORE where it was held that credit is allowed on such services - refund allowed. Legal Expenses - HELD THAT - The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S. HCL TECHNOLOGIES 2014 (11) TMI 663 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where credit on such services allowed - refund allowed on the service. With regard to the other claim of ₹ 2,00,775/- being not considered for refund, I find that there is no finding given by both the lower authorities and therefore, in the interests of justice, this requires fresh adjudication - matter remanded to the file of the Adjudicating Authority who shall pass a de novo order on this issue after considering all the contentions urged by the appellant. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund of Service Tax credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Specific refund claim of ?2,00,775/- not considered by the lower authorities. Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund of Service Tax Credit: The appellant, a Software Technology Park (STP) engaged in exporting online information and database access services, filed two refund claims for the periods October 2016 to December 2016 and January 2017 to March 2017. The Adjudicating Authority partly allowed the claims, which was subsequently rejected by the First Appellate Authority. The appellant contested this rejection, citing several judicial precedents supporting their claim. Room/Laundry Service: The Tribunal referenced the case of M/s. One Advertising & Communication Services Ltd., where it was held that services directly related to business activities, such as hotel rent for business meetings, are admissible for CENVAT credit. Similarly, the appellant's claim for Room/Laundry Service was found to have a business nexus. Insurance and AMC Charges: The Tribunal cited the Bangalore Bench decision in M/s. CCL Products (India) Ltd., which upheld the admissibility of CENVAT credit for insurance premiums and AMC charges, as these services are necessary for the business activity of manufacturing and exporting coffee powder. The Tribunal agreed that these services are integral to the appellant's business operations. APR Certification/CA Services: The Tribunal referred to the case of M/s. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., which confirmed the eligibility of CENVAT credit for professional charges, including those paid to Chartered Accountants, as they are directly related to business activities. Legal Expenses: The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida Vs. M/s. HCL Technologies Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. HCL Technologies, which recognized legal consultancy services as admissible for CENVAT credit. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from these precedents and allowed the appellant's claim for legal expenses. 2. Specific Refund Claim of ?2,00,775/-: The appellant contended that an amount of ?2,00,775/- was not considered for refund despite being claimed in the refund application. The Revenue acknowledged this oversight. The Tribunal, noting the absence of findings from the lower authorities on this specific claim, remanded the issue for fresh adjudication to the Adjudicating Authority, directing a de novo order after considering the appellant's contentions. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowed the refund claims, and remanded the issue of the ?2,00,775/- refund for fresh adjudication. The appeals were thus partly allowed and partly remanded.
|
