2017 (8) TMI 494 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit - advertisement service - professional/consultancy service - postage and courier service - catering service - listing charges - denial on the ground of nexus - Held that - catering service provided in canteen within the factory premise exclusively for workers is an activity in relation to the business of the assessee - Similarly, listing charges are specifically included in the definition of input service as the same are incurred for listing the shares in the stock exchange - postage and courier service and advertisement services have been held to be input service in the case of Metro Shoes Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE, Mumbai 2008 (1) TMI 155 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against refund of CENVAT credit for various services related to manufacturing.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (A)'s order allowing the refund of CENVAT credit for professional/consultancy services, advertisement service, postage and courier service, catering service, and listing charges. The appellants, an Export Oriented Unit (EOU), had their entire range of manufacture exported with no DTA sales. The refund claims were disallowed by the lower authority, citing various reasons, including the absence of the service tax registration number in the invoices. The Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal partially, modifying the Order-in-Original. The Revenue challenged this decision, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the impugned order did not properly appreciate the definition of 'input service' and erroneously allowed the refund for services not exclusively used for manufacturing goods. The appellant contended that the services in question were utilized in the day-to-day business operations and not directly related to the manufacturing process. On the other hand, the respondent defended the Commissioner (A)'s decision, citing detailed reasons for each service being classified as an 'input service.' The respondent relied on tribunal decisions to support the classification of catering service, listing charges, postage and courier service, and advertisement services as input services.

After hearing both parties and reviewing the arguments and precedents cited, the judicial member upheld the Commissioner (A)'s order, finding no fault in it. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision to allow the refund of CENVAT credit for the specified services related to the manufacturing activities of the assessee. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 06/07/2017.