2014 (12) TMI 1046 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - recovery of the refund already sanctioned to the appellant - no nexus between the input services and the output services - Held that - Services in respect of which credit is proposed to be denied and refund sanctioned to be demanded back are held to be input services in the case of the very same assessee in previous final order. Both the issues are no longer res integra and therefore we consider it appropriate that the matter itself should be finally decided even though the learned AR strongly opposed it and submitted that only stay may be granted and decision an appeal may be postponed. When this Tribunal already has taken a view in respect of the very same services in two orders passed in respect of the very same appellant, one of which has been referred to above and the Hon ble High Court also has taken a view in respect of the refund rejected on the ground that ISD registration should have been taken, I consider that it would be appropriate to decide the issue finally at this stage itself especially because the learned counsel submitted that this is a recurring issue and if a final order is not passed at this stage, there will be recurring litigation, it may not be proper to allow to continue - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues: Refund sanction, ISD registration, nexus between input and output services

The judgment addresses the issue of refund sanction amounting to &8377;20,23,866/- for the period from January 2010 to June 2011, which was later challenged for recovery. The first ground for demanding the refund back was the appellants' failure to obtain ISD registration and distribute credit between Unit-I and Unit-II located in the same compound. The counsel cited a High Court decision stating that if an assessee owns multiple units at the same place, it constitutes a factory. Notably, no separate registrations were issued in this case. The second ground for rejecting the refund claim was the alleged lack of nexus between input and output services. However, it was found that the services in question were considered input services in a previous order related to the same assessee. Given the precedents set by the Tribunal and High Court, the judgment deemed it appropriate to conclusively decide the matter to prevent recurring litigation, despite opposition from the AR. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief to the appellant. The stay application was also disposed of.