2017 (2) TMI 54 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - refund claim - input services or not? - Business Support Service - Information Technology service - Management, Maintenance and Repair service - legal consultancy service - Management Consultancy service - denial on the ground of nexus - Held that - all the disputed services fall in the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - the impugned orders are set aside by allowing the appeals of the appellant subject to verification of the document by the adjudicating authority before sanctioning the refund - appeal allowed - matter on remand for limited purpose of verification of document.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for accumulated unutilized CENVAT credit towards exports
- Rejection of refund claims by adjudicating authority based on deemed exports and lack of nexus with input services
- Disputed services include Business Support Service, Information Technology Service, Management, Maintenance and Repair Service, Legal Service, Management Consultancy Service, Cleaning Service, Garden Maintenance, Chartered Accountant Service, Engineering Consultancy Service, Industrial Wastage Management Service, Manpower Recruitment Service, and Project Management Service

Analysis:

1. Refund Claims and Rejection Basis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing pharmaceutical products, filed refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized CENVAT credit towards exports. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims in various appeals based on deemed exports and lack of nexus with input services.

2. Specific Rejection Grounds:
In each appeal, the refund was denied for different input services, including Business Support Service, Information Technology Service, Management, Maintenance and Repair Service, Legal Service, Management Consultancy Service, Cleaning Service, Garden Maintenance, Chartered Accountant Service, Engineering Consultancy Service, Industrial Wastage Management Service, Manpower Recruitment Service, and Project Management Service.

3. Appellant's Arguments:
The appellant contended that the denial of refund based on deemed exports and lack of nexus with input services was incorrect and contrary to previous Tribunal decisions. The appellant argued that all the disputed services qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and cited relevant case laws to support the nexus between the services and the manufacturing process.

4. Judgment and Decision:
After hearing both parties and reviewing the case laws presented, the Tribunal concluded that the disputed services indeed fall within the definition of input services as per Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. Consequently, the impugned orders rejecting the refund claims were set aside, and the appeals of the appellant were allowed, subject to document verification by the adjudicating authority before refund sanctioning.

5. Final Disposition:
The Tribunal pronounced the order in open court on 30/01/2017, disposing of all four appeals collectively due to the identical nature of the issues involved. The decision highlighted the importance of establishing the nexus between input services and the manufacturing process to qualify for CENVAT credit refunds.

By meticulously analyzing the facts, arguments, and legal precedents, the Tribunal clarified the eligibility criteria for refund claims under CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing the need for a direct connection between input services and the manufacturing activities to support such claims.