9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 695 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - nexus exists between inputs and export outputs or not - Club or Association Services - Services by Airconditioned Restaurants - Sponsorship Services - Event Management Services - Short Term Hotel Accommodation Services - Mandap Keeper Services - Convention Services - Cable Operator Services - HELD THAT - The issue concerning rejection of refund against credits on inputs taken by the Appellant engaged solely on export of services is not required to be decided again in evaluating the eligibility of availment of such input credits by the Appellant since judicial precedent set by this Tribunal would rule the field in the absence of any contradictory finding by the Appellate Court. Therefore, in reiterating what has been observed by me in respect of Appellant s earlier appeal that was decided on 05.07.2019 in WARBURG PINCUS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-II, MUMBAI 2019 (7) TMI 337 - CESTAT MUMBAI that judicial precedent is to be carried forward for maintenance of certainty and predictability in the decision making process that has already held the input services availed by the Appellant as eligible credits and in view of the fact that Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) permits refund of such unutilised credits of the exporters, the following order is passed. The order is hereby modified in holding that the Appellant is eligible also to get refund of the unutilised CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs.13,55,221/- with applicable interest and the Respondent-Department is directed to pay the same within two months of receipt of this order - appeal allowed.
Issues:
Partial rejection of 3 refund claims under Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) on the ground of no nexus between inputs and export outputs. Analysis: The Appellant, engaged in providing investment advisory services to a US-based company, sought refunds of unutilized CENVAT Credit on input services for the period between April 2016 and June 2017. The refund Sanctioning Authority partially allowed the refund and rejected certain credits, leading to appeals before the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Mumbai. The Commissioner sanctioned a refund but rejected credits related to specific services like Club or Association Services, Sponsorship Services, and Event Management Services, citing a lack of nexus with the exported services. The appeal challenges the rejection of refund on these grounds. During arguments, the Appellant's Counsel cited precedents set by the Tribunal in similar cases, where refunds on inputs like Club or Association Services, Sponsorship Services, and Event Management Services were allowed. The Counsel emphasized the importance of following judicial precedents for consistency and predictability in decision-making. Referring to circulars clarifying Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, the Counsel argued that the Commissioner's rejection of certain input credits without due process was arbitrary and illegal. The Appellant sought the Tribunal's intervention to allow the denied credits. In response, the Authorised Representative for the Respondent defended the Commissioner's order, highlighting the detailed reasoning provided for rejecting certain input credits. The Respondent argued that the impact on the company's performance due to non-availment of specific services was a crucial factor considered in the rejection. The Respondent opposed any interference in the Commissioner's decision. After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal upheld the judicial precedent set by previous decisions in similar cases. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining certainty and predictability in decision-making processes. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the Commissioner's order, holding the Appellant eligible for a refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 13,55,221, along with applicable interest. The Respondent-Department was directed to make the payment within two months of the order. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, modifying the Commissioner's order to grant the Appellant the refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit, emphasizing the significance of following established judicial precedents for consistency and fairness in decision-making.
|
