9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 775 - AT - Service TaxRefund of the unutilized CENVAT credit - input services consumed in exporting services - rejection of refund claim on the ground that since the appellant is located in SEZ, they ought to have filed refund claims as per the procedure and conditions laid down under SEZ refund notification instead of claiming refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - period April 2010 to June 2010, July 2010 to September 2010, October to December, 2010 and January 2011 to March 2011 - HELD THAT - After going through the provisions under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, it is found that it does not restrict or bar an SEZ to file refund claim of unutilized credit. The ground stated by the authorities below to reject the refund claim does not appear to be legal or proper. The rejection of refund claim cannot be justified. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 rejected for SEZ unit filing under SEZ notification instead. Analysis: The case involved a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, located in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), providing business support services to clients outside India. The company filed refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized CENVAT credit on input services used in exporting services. The claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the premise that as an SEZ unit, the company should have followed the procedure under SEZ refund notification instead of claiming under Rule 5. The appellant challenged this rejection before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that being an SEZ unit does not preclude them from claiming refunds under Rule 5, which allows exporters to claim unutilized credit on input services used for taxable services exported. The appellant contended that there was no legal bar for SEZ units to claim such refunds and opted to proceed under Rule 5. The appellant emphasized that even if the refund was filed under the SEZ notification, it would still be subject to section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant maintained that the denial of the refund was unwarranted as there was no allegation of non-usage of input services or failure to export output services. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and found no restriction preventing an SEZ unit from filing refund claims for unutilized credit. The Tribunal disagreed with the grounds cited by the lower authorities for rejecting the refund claims, deeming them unjustified and legally improper. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals with any consequential reliefs. The judgment highlighted that SEZ units, despite enjoying special taxation status, were not barred from claiming refunds under Rule 5 and that the rejection of the refund claims was unjustifiable. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified that SEZ units have the right to claim refunds under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized credit on input services used in exporting taxable services. The judgment emphasized that the location of an entity in an SEZ does not restrict its ability to avail of such refunds and that the denial of the refund based solely on the SEZ status was legally untenable.
|
