2013 (2) TMI 382 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim rejected - no nexus shown as regards the use of input services for providing output services - Held that - As per FAA appellant s output services Information Technology Software Services can use the input services like rent services, band with services, security services, office cleaning services, operation services, travelling services, maintenance services etc. on which objection was raised. To that extent FAA held in the favour of the assessee and as on today there being no appeal from Revenue, the impugned order to that extent is upheld. Non production of documentary evidence and non production of certificate of the chartered accountant indicating the nexus of the input services for providing the output services - Held that - This is the rectifiable error which can be rectified. As chartered accountant claims that they will be able to produce such documentary evidence it is deem fit to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue of refund claims on the point of production of documentary evidences and also a certificate from the chartered accountant - in favour of assessee by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved: Rejection of refund claim on the grounds of lack of nexus between input and output services, non-production of documentary evidence, and non-production of certificate from a chartered accountant indicating the nexus.

Analysis:

1. Lack of Nexus between Input and Output Services:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad revolve around the rejection of refund claims filed by the appellant concerning service tax paid on input services used for providing output services in the Information Technology Software Services sector. Both lower authorities had ruled against the appellant on this issue. However, the first appellate authority acknowledged that the appellant's output services could legitimately utilize various input services like rent services, bandwidth services, security services, and more. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld this part of the decision, noting the absence of any appeal from the Revenue on this specific matter.

2. Non-Production of Documentary Evidence and Chartered Accountant Certificate:
The refund claim was also rejected based on the appellant's failure to provide documentary evidence and a certificate from a chartered accountant demonstrating the nexus between the input and output services. The Tribunal identified this as a rectifiable error that could be addressed. The appellant's chartered accountant assured the Tribunal of their ability to produce the required documentary evidence. As these documents were not presented before the lower authorities, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal directed the authority to reconsider the refund claims, specifically focusing on the production of necessary documentary evidence and obtaining a certificate from either the chartered accountant or the appellant, confirming the eligibility for the service tax refund on the received services.

3. Decision and Remand:
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all the appeals by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh review. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the principles of natural justice during this reconsideration process, particularly in light of the directions provided regarding the production of documentary evidence and the certification requirement. This comprehensive analysis of the issues involved in the judgment showcases the Tribunal's meticulous approach to addressing each aspect of the refund claim rejection, ensuring a fair and thorough reconsideration of the matter.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the Tribunal's findings, and the directions given for further proceedings, thereby capturing the essence of the legal decision in question.