2015 (12) TMI 955 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of refund under Notification No. 05/2006, read with Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Advertising, Security, Manpower Recruitment and Supply service - Notification is restrictive since the word used isservice used in providing output service - nexus between the input service and output service - Held that - issues involved in the present appeal have been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Apotex Ltd. & Others - 2015 (3) TMI 346 - CESTAT BANGALORE . In the case of Apotex Ltd. & Others , issue relating to nexus was considered and three services in question before us have been held to be admissible. Moreover, this Tribunal in the case of C. Cubed Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E, Bangalore 2013 (7) TMI 347 - CESTAT BANGALORE has considered the very same services and come to the conclusion that refund is admissible. This decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also. As regards the Notification No. 05/2006, this notification was retrospectively amended and word in has been replaced by in or in relation to . Therefore, this ground also cannot be sustained - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against modified Order-in-Original granting refund under Notification No. 05/2006 for specific services - Dispute over the restrictive nature of the Notification and nexus between input and output services.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the modified Order-in-Original that allowed the benefit of refund under Notification No. 05/2006, along with Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for services such as Advertising, Security, Manpower Recruitment, and Supply. The primary argument raised was the restrictive nature of the Notification, contending that the term 'used' in the context of service provision was limiting. Additionally, it was asserted that there was no direct connection established between the input services and the output services.

2. Both parties acknowledged that the issues raised in the appeal had been previously addressed by the Tribunal in the case of Apotex Ltd. & Others - ST/00100/2008, where the nexus between services was deliberated upon, and the admissibility of the three services in question was affirmed. Furthermore, referencing the case of C. Cubed Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E, Bangalore [2013 (293) E.L.T. 398 (Tri.- Bang.)], the Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of granting refunds for the same services, establishing a precedent. The retrospective amendment of Notification No. 05/2006, replacing 'in' with 'in or in relation to,' was highlighted as a factor supporting the admissibility of the refund claims. Consequently, the Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal lacking in merit and dismissed it accordingly.

3. The Tribunal's decision to reject the appeal was based on the established precedents, emphasizing the applicability of past judgments in similar cases and the retrospective amendment to the notification. By aligning with previous rulings and legal interpretations, the Tribunal upheld the admissibility of the refund claims under Notification No. 05/2006 for the specified services, thereby providing clarity and consistency in the application of relevant laws and regulations.