9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 97 - AT - Service Tax100% EOU - Refund claim - the finished goods exported by the respondent are exempted from payment of excise duty vide N/N. 4/2008-CE-dated 01-03-2006 issued under Section 5A of Central Excise Act,1944. That the impugned goods being exempted goods were exported by appellant who are 100% EOU - whether the provisions of rule 6(6) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is applicable and respondents are eligible to take credit on service tax paid on input services? - is refund justified? - Held that - The Tribunal in the case of Neo Foods Pvt.Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore 2009 (1) TMI 171 - CESTAT Bangalore have analysed and discussed the issues in detail. The tribunal in the said case held that Rule 6(6)(v) would be covering even all exports of final products by a 100% EOU and therefore, would not be hit by Rule 6(1) as far the eligibility of Cenvat credit on input/input services used in manufacture of final products exported by a 100% EOU is concerned - Decided against the revenue.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) rejecting the refund claim filed by the respondents. 2. Eligibility of the respondents, a 100% EOU, to take credit on service tax paid on input services. 3. Interpretation of Notification No.40/2007-ST and its applicability to the refund claim. 4. Cross objections filed by the respondents regarding the denial of Cenvat credit based on goods not being exported under bond. 5. Analysis of relevant case laws and tribunal decisions supporting the eligibility of 100% EOU for refund of input services. Analysis: 1. The department challenged the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) rejecting the refund claim filed by the respondents, arguing that the finished goods exported by the respondents are exempted from excise duty under Notification No.4/2008-CE. The department contended that as the goods were exempted, the provisions of Rule 6(6) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 do not apply, making the respondents ineligible for the credit on service tax paid on input services. The department also disputed the reliance on Notification No.40/2007-ST by the Commissioner(Appeals) for granting the refund, stating that the notification came into force after the period in question, thus the respondents were not eligible for the refund. 2. The respondents, a 100% EOU, filed cross objections asserting their eligibility for Cenvat credit, emphasizing that being an EOU and exporting goods under EOU bond, they should not be denied credit based on the goods not being exported under bond as per Central Excise Rules, 2002. They relied on the Tribunal's decision in ANZ International case and the High Court of Karnataka's ruling, supporting their claim for credit. The Commissioner(Appeals) noted that the respondents were entitled to a refund of service tax paid on input services as per the Board's instructions and the legislative intent to provide relief on taxes paid on export of goods. 3. The Commissioner(Appeals) highlighted the significance of harmoniously interpreting the Board's instructions with statutory provisions, emphasizing that exporters are entitled to a refund of service tax paid on input services without the scope for utilization. The Commissioner(Appeals) referenced the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and various case laws like Cauvery Stones Impex and Neo Foods Pvt. Ltd., which supported the eligibility of 100% EOU for refund of input services. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the respondents' claim for refund, dismissing the department's appeal. 4. The Tribunal's analysis in the case of Neo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) supported the eligibility of 100% EOU for Cenvat credit on input services used in the manufacture of final products exported. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the legislative intent to provide relief on taxes paid on exports, affirming the respondents' entitlement to the refund. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the order granting the refund to the respondents, a 100% EOU. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, interpretations of relevant notifications, and the supporting case laws that led to the Tribunal's decision in favor of the respondents, a 100% EOU, regarding the refund claim on input services.
|
