9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 814 - AT - Service TaxRefund of CENVAT Credit - input services - nexus with the out put service - Garden maintenance service - Business Auxiliary services - Cable Operator Services - Commercial training or coaching services - design services - convention/event management/mandap keeper services - Health and fitness service - renting of immovable property/car parking area - sponsorship services - Tour Operator services - works contract services - HELD THAT - The appellant has given detailed justification in their ground of appeals for each of the impugned services involved in these sixteen appeals with judicial precedents and the impugned services have been used by the appellant for rendering the output services. Further it is found that the reasoning given by the Commissioner(A) in the impugned orders is not correct in law and the correct position in law is that to test for eligibility is whether input services is used by the provider of taxable service for providing output service and the input services should not be covered by the exclusion clause. All these services on which refund has been rejected consistently held to be input services in various decision relied upon by the appellant. Moreover the Department has not questioned the input service at the time when the CENVAT credit was taken and as per the decision of this Tribunal in the case of K Line Ship Management Pvt. Ltd. vs. CGST 2017 (7) TMI 412 - CESTAT MUMBAI wherein it has been held that the department is not permitted to question the eligibility of CENVAT credit at the time of claiming refund. Further in view of the clarification given by the tax research unit of CBEC vide their letter dated 16.3.2012 the amended Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules does not require correlation between the output service exported and the input service used in such output service exported. The appellant is entitled to refund of CENVAT credit along with interest - original authority will re- quantify the amount of refund after deducting the amount not pressed for - Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of refund claims on input services. 2. Nexus between input services and output services. 3. Eligibility of CENVAT credit at the time of refund. 4. Correlation requirement under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Refund Claims on Input Services: The appellants filed 16 appeals against the rejection of refund claims on various input services by the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) upheld the orders of the original authority, rejecting the refund claims on the grounds that the input services did not have a nexus with the output services and were not essential for the business. The appellant argued that these services were essential for maintaining a clean environment and were necessary for the business, citing various judicial precedents. 2. Nexus Between Input Services and Output Services: The appellant contended that the input services, such as garden maintenance, cable operator service, commercial training, design services, and others, had a direct nexus with the output services. They relied on various decisions from the Tribunal and High Courts that had previously held these services to be input services. The appellant provided detailed justifications and cited multiple cases, including Semco Electrical Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune and WIPRO Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Pondicherry, to support their claim. 3. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit at the Time of Refund: The appellant argued that under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, they were entitled to claim a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit and that the eligibility of the credit could not be questioned at the time of refund. They cited the case of K Line Ship Management India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, where it was held that the department could not question the eligibility of CENVAT credit when claiming a refund. The appellant also cited several other decisions where the Tribunal consistently held that refund could not be denied due to a lack of nexus. 4. Correlation Requirement Under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: The appellant submitted that the amended Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, effective from 1.4.2012, did not require a correlation between the output service exported and the input services used. They relied on the clarification given by the Tax Research Unit (TRU) of CBEC and cited decisions such as Genpact India Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Gurugram, to support their argument. Judgment: After considering the submissions and perusing the records, the Tribunal found that the appellant had provided detailed justifications and judicial precedents for each of the impugned services. The Tribunal held that the reasoning given by the Commissioner (A) was incorrect in law and that the correct position was to test whether the input services were used for providing output services and were not covered by the exclusion clause. The Tribunal noted that the department had not questioned the input services when the CENVAT credit was taken and that the eligibility of CENVAT credit could not be questioned at the time of claiming a refund. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the appellant was entitled to a refund of CENVAT credit along with interest, except for the amounts shown in Table - 2, where the refund was not pressed due to the small amount involved. The original authority was directed to re-quantify the refund amount after deducting the amounts not pressed. Disposition: The appeals were disposed of on the above terms, with the order pronounced in open court on 18/08/2021.
|
