2019 (10) TMI 959 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - export of services - denial on the ground that there is no nexus between the input services and the output service exported by the appellant; that description of services mentioned in the invoice did not confirm to the definition of the input service contained in Rule 2(l) ibid and that some of the invoices were not submitted for ascertaining the issue. HELD THAT - So far as establishing the nexus between input and the output service is concerned, I find that this Tribunal in the case of ACCELYA KALE SOLUTIONS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST CE MUMBAI 2018 (8) TMI 19 - CESTAT MUMBAI by relying upon the letter dated 16.03.2012 of TRU has held that under Rule 5 ibid, refund of input service credit is permissible on compliance of the formula prescribed therein and not otherwise - Refund allowed on this ground. Rejection of the refund application on the ground that the description of service as per the invoice is not confirming to the category of services mentioned in Rule 2(l) ibid - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact on record that the authorities below have not proceeded against the appellant for denial of Cenvat benefit by taking recourse to Rule 14 ibid, which provides for recovery of Cenvat credit wrongly taken or utilised. Since, the present issue pertains to refund claim under Rule 5 ibid, it has only to be ensured that the formula prescribed in the said rule has been complied with by the claimant. Thus, rejection of refund benefit on such ground is not justified. Rejection also on the ground that the appellant did not produce the invoices for scrutiny before the original authority - HELD THAT - The onus lies with the claimant to prove that the input services were in fact used for exportation of the output service and thus, the documents were required to be examined at the original stage. At this juncture, since the learned Advocate for the appellant submits that all the relevant documents are available with the appellant, the matter should be remanded to the original authority for verification of the documents/records to be submitted by the appellant - Matter on remand - appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of refund benefit based on the nexus between input and output services.
2. Rejection of refund application due to service description not matching Rule 2(l) ibid.
3. Refusal of refund on the grounds of missing invoices for scrutiny.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the denial of refund benefit based on the nexus between input and output services. The appellant, engaged in providing business support services to overseas clients, exported output services without utilizing Cenvat credit for service tax payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund, citing lack of nexus between input and output services, discrepancies in service descriptions, and missing invoices. However, the Tribunal clarified that under the amended Rule 5, the refund claim should be based on the prescribed formula without the need to establish a nexus. Relying on the TRU letter dated 16.03.2012, the Tribunal held that the nexus is not mandatory for refund consideration. Consequently, the impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

2. The second issue concerns the rejection of the refund application due to discrepancies in the service descriptions not aligning with Rule 2(l) ibid. The Tribunal noted that since the denial was under Rule 5 for refund claims, compliance with the prescribed formula was crucial, not the service description matching Rule 2(l) ibid. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

3. The third issue pertains to the refusal of the refund due to missing invoices for scrutiny. The Tribunal emphasized the claimant's responsibility to prove the use of input services for exporting output services. As the appellant assured the availability of relevant documents, the matter was remanded to the original authority for verification of the invoices. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for document verification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on all three issues, overturning the impugned order and allowing the appeals based on the clarified legal positions regarding refund considerations and document verification.