2017 (3) TMI 864 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with N/N. 27/2012 CE (NT) dated 08.06.2012 - Natural justice - Department has not issued a SCN proposing to reject the refund claim - Held that - The department cannot reject the refund claim without issuing a SCN - This Tribunal in the judgment rendered in the case of M/s. D E Shaw India Software Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (7) TMI 91 - CESTAT HYDERABAD had observed that the rejection of refund without issuing a SCN is highly harsh and violation of principles of natural justice. Also, on perusal of records it was found that for all services, refund is eligible - rejection of refund is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012 CE (NT) dated 08.06.2012.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's primary contention was the lack of issuance of a Show Cause Notice, depriving them of a fair opportunity to defend their case. The appellant's representative detailed various services and corresponding disallowances, providing justifications for each. The appellant argued that the rejection of refund was unjust, citing the need for proper documentation and the essential nature of certain services for business activities. Reference was made to a previous case where the Tribunal had allowed a similar refund claim, emphasizing the importance of establishing a nexus between input and output services.

2. The respondent, represented by the Ld. AR, reiterated the findings in the impugned order, emphasizing the appellant's failure to establish the required nexus between input services and the refund claim. The respondent maintained that the disallowance was justified based on this lack of nexus.

3. The presiding Member considered both sides' submissions. The appellant's argument regarding the absence of a Show Cause Notice was supported by a previous Tribunal judgment, highlighting the violation of natural justice principles in rejecting the refund claim without proper notification. The Member referenced the case law to differentiate between inputs and input services, emphasizing the need for a nexus in the latter. The Member also highlighted the amended provision in Rule 5 and previous Tribunal decisions supporting the admissibility of credit without the condition of proving a direct link between input and output services. Based on these considerations and the appellant's previous successful refund claim for similar services, the rejection of the refund claim was deemed unjustified, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential reliefs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal arguments presented by both parties, the relevant case law references, and the Member's reasoning leading to the final decision in favor of the appellant.