2017 (3) TMI 247 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - Refund claim - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - rent in regard to car parking - maintenance charges - Chartered Accountant services, Manpower Recruitment and .Supply Agency Services, Telecommunication services, Management or Business Consultant Services, Security Agency services - denial on account of nexus - Held that - The rent paid for car parking as well as the maintenance charges paid for the premises is part and parcel of the rent agreement, though the amounts are paid as rent towards car parking and maintenance charges. The disallowance of refund of these services is not proper - refund allowed. Chartered Accountant services - Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services - Telecommunication services - Management or Business Consultant Services - Security Agency services - Held that - The Tribunal in the case of M/s Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt Ltd., Versus CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad-IV 2017 (2) TMI 574 - CESTAT HYDERABAD has discussed and analysed the eligibility of refund in respect of services, and held that these services are eligible for refund. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU providing ITSS, filed a refund claim for the period April 2012 to June 2012, which was initially rejected but partially allowed by the Commissioner(Appeals). The appellant appealed against the rejection of a portion of the refund amount. The appellant's consultant argued for the refund, citing previous Tribunal orders in their favor for similar services. The services for which refund was rejected included renting of immovable property, chartered accountant services, manpower recruitment, telecommunication services, management consultant services, security agency services, club or association services, cleaning activity services, technical inspection, banking services, maintenance or repair services, business auxiliary services, courier services, ITSS, and custom house agent services.

The Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order during the hearing. The Member (Judicial) analyzed the case and held that the appellant was eligible for the refund. The Member noted that while the refund for renting immovable property services was allowed, the refund for car parking and maintenance charges was disallowed, which was deemed improper. Refund for various other services like chartered accountant services, manpower recruitment, telecommunication services, management consultant services, and security agency services was also disallowed initially. However, the Member referred to previous Tribunal orders that discussed the eligibility of refunds for these services and decided in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order disallowing the refund was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.

This judgment highlights the importance of analyzing the nexus between input services and output services for refund claims under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It also underscores the significance of precedent and previous tribunal decisions in determining the eligibility of refund claims for specific services.