2021 (11) TMI 693 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilised cenvat credit - disallowance for want of nexus - N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) dt. 18/06/2012 - HELD THAT - It is settled that with effect from 01/04/2011, the Board has itself done away with the nexus test vide its Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dt. 18/06/2012, and hence the disallowance for want of nexus cannot sustain. This view has been expressed in many orders of CESTAT benches, the latest one being of this very bench in the case of SAMSUNG R AND D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU EAST 2021 (3) TMI 1002 - CESTAT BANGALORE . To this extent therefore, the impugned order is set aside. It is now required to examine whether the reduction of utilised credit for domestic clearances has been done twice, or not. It is not in dispute that the appellant s claim for refund was after reducing the utilised cenvat credit which appears to have again been reduced by the sanctioning authority in the de novo Order-in-Original. The Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order observed that the appellant s claim for refund of unutilised cenvat credit was not supported by documentary evidences, which would only mean that the appellant perhaps did not properly explain the same with supporting documents as well as computations. Matter remanded back to the file of the adjudicating authority before whom the appellant shall furnish all such evidences as well as computations to establish that it has already reduced voluntarily the utilised cenvat credit and if satisfied, the adjudicating authority shall work out the refund in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether the adjudicating authority correctly rejected the appellant's claim for refund of unutilised cenvat credit?

Analysis:

1. Issue of rejection of refund claim: The primary issue in this case revolved around the correctness of the adjudicating authority's decision to reject the appellant's claim for refund of unutilised cenvat credit. The appellant contended that they had voluntarily reduced the utilised cenvat credit in their refund claim and claimed the eligible refund amount based on the balance cenvat credit at the end of the quarter. However, the adjudicating authority had once again reduced the utilised credit in the Order-in-Original, resulting in a double reduction. The Revenue argued that since the appellant had utilised the cenvat credit towards DTA clearance, they were only entitled to a refund of the remaining unutilised credit, and that the appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support their claims. The Commissioner(Appeals) noted the lack of documentary evidence in the refund claim, indicating a failure on the appellant's part to adequately substantiate their position.

2. Nexus test and change in law: The Tribunal highlighted the change in law regarding the nexus test for refund claims post-April 2011. The Board had eliminated the nexus test through Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18/06/2012. The Tribunal referenced previous orders, including one from the same bench, to emphasize that disallowance based on the nexus test was no longer valid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the disallowance related to the nexus test in the impugned order.

3. Remand for further examination: Given the discrepancies in the reduction of utilised credit and the lack of documentary evidence supporting the refund claim, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The appellant was directed to provide all necessary evidence and computations to demonstrate that they had already voluntarily reduced the utilised cenvat credit. Upon verification and satisfaction by the adjudicating authority, the refund would be processed in accordance with the law, including the automatic grant of interest under Section 11BB. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, subject to the specified terms.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues surrounding the rejection of the refund claim, the elimination of the nexus test post-2011, and the need for further examination and evidence provision by the appellant to substantiate their refund claim. The decision to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for proper assessment and processing of the refund, along with the grant of interest under Section 11BB upon approval, provided a clear path for resolution in accordance with the law.