2016 (9) TMI 378 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 input service - mandap-keeper service - security agency service - courier service - manpower recruitment service - rent-a-cab scheme operator service - transport service - CA service - insurance service - management consultancy service - management, maintenance and repair service nexus with output service receipt of services consumption of services Held that - as regard the distribution of services, as per the statement made by the appellant, it was distributed in proportionate on principle of seats in individual unit. This method of distribution appears to be correct and the same cannot be discarded. Input service invoice correct address not mentioned input service no nexus with output service Held that - if there is any error in the invoice, to satisfy correctness of the credit, department can very well verify books of accounts to ascertain whether invoice were accounted for in the respect of unit and if it is found correct then irrespective of mention of incorrect address refund should be allowed - there is no dispute that input service was received and used by the respective unit . Invoice service tax registration Held that - this is a clerical error on the part of the service provider, however if the service tax amount is mentioned, merely because registration number is not appearing, refund cannot be denied. Refund allowed - Before sanctioning the refund, Adjudicating authority can verify the documents matter remanded to the Original adjudicating authority to reconsider the refund appeal allowed decided in favor of appellant

Issues:
1. Denial of refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Lack of nexus between input services and output services.
3. Incorrect input service invoices.
4. Missing service tax registration number on invoices.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim of ?36,84,611/- citing various grounds, including lack of nexus between input and output services, incorrect invoices, and missing service tax registration numbers. The appellant filed an appeal, arguing that all services used were essential for providing the output service, and the distribution of credit from the head office to various units was done correctly based on the principle of seats. The appellant cited judgments to support their claim that the credit transfer from the head office to units was permissible even before ISD registration. The Tribunal found the distribution method appropriate and disagreed with the Commissioner's findings, remanding the matter for reconsideration.

Issue 2: Lack of nexus between input services and output services:
The Ld. Commissioner denied the refund of ?22,13,819/- due to the perceived lack of nexus between input services distributed by the head office and the export services. However, the Tribunal found the method of distribution based on the principle of seats to be correct, citing relevant judgments that supported the appellant's position. The Tribunal held that the denial of refund based on the lack of nexus was not sustainable, emphasizing the proper allocation of credit to individual units.

Issue 3: Incorrect input service invoices:
A refund of ?5,49,209/- was denied due to incorrect input service invoices, where the address mismatch occurred. The appellant argued that despite the error, the services were received and used by the respective unit, and the correctness of the credit could be verified through the books of accounts. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that even with errors in invoices, if the services were correctly accounted for, the refund should be allowed. The Tribunal supported this view with relevant judgments and remanded the matter for further verification.

Issue 4: Missing service tax registration number on invoices:
Refund of ?5927/- was denied due to missing service tax registration numbers on invoices, deemed a clerical error by the service provider. The Tribunal held that the absence of registration numbers should not lead to refund denial, especially when the service tax amount was mentioned on the invoices and duly discharged. The Tribunal emphasized that for such minor errors, the appellant should not be denied substantial refunds and remanded the matter for reconsideration by the Adjudicating authority.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the correct allocation of credit, the verification of correctness through books of accounts, and the minor nature of errors in invoices should not lead to the denial of substantial refunds.

← Previous Next →