2016 (3) TMI 525 - AT - Service Tax

Disallowance of refund claim - Input services received at unregistered premises with respect to services received from travel agent, guest house expenses, invoices not produced, service received from vendor not registered under proper category and the name of the appellant was not mentioned on the invoice - Held that - travel agent service have been wrongly disallowed and is allowable, guest house expenses is also allowable as the guest house is used for business purposes and have got indirect nexus with the business of the appellant. With regard to invoice not produced, the Cenvat credit is allowed to the extent being the amount of the invoices produced now before this Tribunal during the course of hearing and so far as the disallowance is concerned on the ground that the provider of service is not registred under proper category, the disallowance is bad in law and the same is held allowable. With respect to manpower recruitment service, issue is remanded to the adjudicating authority. - Decided partly in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of input credit refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Disallowance upheld with respect to various input services.
3. Legal arguments regarding the disallowances.
4. Applicability of previous tribunal rulings.
5. Decision on each disallowance and remand of one issue for further verification.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant, an exporter of service, appealed against the disallowance of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals). The claim was for input credit not utilized due to the nature of output services being exported. Part of the claim was allowed, but the balance was rejected, leading to the appeal.

2. The Appellant contested various disallowances upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). These included disallowances related to unregistered premises, services from travel agents, guest house expenses, missing invoices, service providers not registered under the correct category, and invoices without the Appellant's name.

3. The Appellant argued that the disallowance related to unregistered premises was unjustified since the premises had been subsequently approved and added to the registration certificate. They also cited a Karnataka High Court ruling to support their position that registration status is not a requirement for a refund claim in the case of service exporters.

4. The Tribunal considered previous rulings, including one where Cenvat credit was disallowed due to invoices not mentioning the recipient's name. The Tribunal also referred to a case where credit was denied for invoices not issued in the name of the assessee.

5. The Tribunal made specific decisions on each disallowance. They allowed the claim related to the previously disallowed premises, travel agent services, guest house expenses, and missing invoices produced during the hearing. The disallowance for service providers not registered under the correct category was deemed invalid. However, the issue of invoices without the Appellant's name was remanded for further verification.

6. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal and directed the Appellant to appear before the concerned authority with supporting documents for the remanded issue of manpower recruitment services for further verification.

This detailed analysis outlines the legal arguments presented, the Tribunal's consideration of previous rulings, and the specific decisions made on each disallowance, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment.