2016 (7) TMI 558 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - Export of services by the 100% EOU - eligible input services - Duty paying documents - Held that - Major portion of the refund is denied for the reason that the invoice is issued to the unregistered premises of the appellant. As per Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, there is no requirement that the premises of the service recipient has to be registered. Therefore, the denial of refund on this ground is unjustified. The invoice with regard to Erection, Commissioner and Installation services shows that the woks done is minor work of cleaning and remodeling chairs. The service provider has paid service tax under the category of Erection, Commissioner and Installation services. All the other services detailed above and shown in the table are included in the definition of input service. They have been used by the appellant for providing output service as explained by the learned consultant. - Refund allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on disallowed CENVAT credit for various input services.

Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU registered under STPI Scheme, filed a refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit on input services used for providing output services. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned a partial amount and rejected a portion of the claim. The appellant appealed, disputing the denial of refund/credit of a specific amount. The appellant contested the denial of &8377; 6,78,883, excluding &8377; 4,669. The disallowed amounts included invoices addressed to unregistered premises, unrelated input services for export, car parking charges, and housekeeping services not linked to output services.

The appellant's consultant argued that invoices to unregistered premises did not require registration of the service recipient's premises under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, as long as the service provider's details were correct. Additionally, certain services like business support, management consultants, and training services were crucial for providing output services. The appellant maintained proper credit disclosure, citing a precedent where credit and refund should not have separate criteria.

The Assistant Commissioner's decision was challenged, and the appellate tribunal found the denial of refund based on unregistered premises unjustified. Services like minor office works, business support, training, consultancy, and maintenance were deemed eligible for refund as they were integral to providing output services. The tribunal allowed the appeal partly, setting aside the impugned order and granting relief except for a minor sum of &8377; 4,999.

In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claim for most disallowed amounts related to essential input services, except for a negligible sum.