2015 (12) TMI 947 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT credit accumulated - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Held that - If a refund claim for the period from October 2006 to December 2006 was returned pointing out certain deficiencies, the appellant should have resubmitted the claim for the same period and segregated the claim for January to March 2007 and submitted it separately. If they do not want to claim refund for October and November 2006, the refund claim would have been filed only for December 2006. Unless, I am able to take a view that the claim which was returned for the period from October 2006 to December 2006 was resubmitted in the eyes of law, it may not be possible to uphold the stand taken by the appellant that the part of the refund claim submitted has to be treated as resubmission of the earlier claim. The claims for October to December 2006 and December 2006 to March 2007 have to be treated as separate claims and in my opinion this has been correctly followed. Therefore this ground cannot be sustained. - Matter remanded back - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refund of CENVAT credit accumulated and claimed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.

Analysis:
1. Appeal No. C/775/2010: The appeal involves a refund claim filed for the period from December 2006 to March 2007. The claim for December 2006 was rejected due to limitations. The appellant had resubmitted the claim for December 2006 along with the claim for January to March 2007, arguing that it should be considered as a resubmission after rectifying deficiencies in the initial claim from October to December 2006. However, the tribunal held that the claims for October to December 2006 and December 2006 to March 2007 should be treated as separate claims. The tribunal emphasized the need for separate submissions and rejected the appellant's argument, stating that the claims were correctly treated as distinct claims.

2. The entire refund claim amounting to Rs. 94,176 was rejected because the appellant filed the claim before making the payment. The tribunal decided to remand the issue to the original authority for detailed verification of facts regarding when the credit was taken, payment made, and when the refund claim was filed. The tribunal disagreed with the denial of the entire refund claim based on the timing of payment, indicating that a portion of the claim related to CENVAT credit taken after service tax payment and should be considered separately for approval.

3. An amount of Rs. 29,863 was denied due to the contention that the C&F service received was in relation to outward transportation. The appellant argued that as a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU), the place of removal for exports is the port, making the credit admissible. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 8,568 was denied for audit services, with the appellant asserting that audit services are related to the finance of an organization and should not have been disallowed.

2. Appeal No. 776/2010: This appeal pertains to a refund claim from April 2007 to September 2007. The entire credit of Rs. 3,84,175 was denied due to a portion of the CENVAT credit being taken before the payment of service tax. The tribunal reiterated the need for detailed verification by the original authority and disagreed with the blanket denial of the entire claim based on the timing of payment.

4. An amount of Rs. 1,31,144 was denied for outward C&F service. The tribunal indicated that this issue had already been addressed in a similar context in the previous appeal. The tribunal remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a reevaluation of the claims in light of the observations made, emphasizing the appellant's right to present their case before a final decision is reached.