2020 (12) TMI 381 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized cenvat credit - rejection on the ground that there is no nexus between input service and output service - period January 2017 to March 2017 - HELD THAT - It is fact on record that at the time of claiming the cenvat credit it was not objected at any moment of time with regard to admissibility of cenvat credit. The same is a legal issue and can be raised any moment of time. Moreover, in the impugned order also, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the issue and it can be contested any stage of time as admissibility of cenvat credit has not been agitated at the time of availment of cenvat credit, therefore, the same cannot be disputed at the time of filing refund claim as held by this Tribunal in the case of VERISIGN SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX BANGALORE SERVICE TAX- I 2018 (2) TMI 927 - CESTAT, BANGALORE . Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 for the quarter January 2017 to March 2017.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in providing Business Auxiliary Service, filed a refund claim for unutilized cenvat credit for the mentioned quarter. The claim was rejected citing lack of nexus between input and output services, and some services not qualifying as 'Input Service' under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. The appellant contended that admissibility of cenvat credit cannot be questioned at the refund claim stage if not raised earlier. The appellant argued that showing usage of input services in providing output services is sufficient, not the nexus. The Authorized Representative opposed, stating the ineligibility of services and the timing of raising admissibility issues. The Tribunal noted that admissibility of cenvat credit can be contested at any stage if not raised earlier, following a precedent case. The Tribunal emphasized that the services in question were necessary for providing output services, entitling them to cenvat credit.

The Tribunal referred to another case where it was held that services required for providing output services qualify as input services, and disallowance of input credit without proper notice is unjust. Regarding remuneration paid to an individual, the Tribunal found the absence of essential facts in the Adjudicating Authority's findings, leading to the allowance of Cenvat credit. Relying on precedent decisions and arguments presented, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief if any. The operative part of the order was pronounced in the Court, granting relief to the appellant.