2017 (10) TMI 22 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - denial on account of nexus - Rule 5 of the CENVAT credit Rule - Held that - the eligibility of individual service as input service is required to be studied as per their actual use, within the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules amended as on date, where action is being proposed in terms of Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004 - in the instant case, no such proposal of demand or reversal of Cenvat Credit on ineligible input services was made either in the Show Cause Notices or at the time of personal hearing - Rule 5 does not mandate denial of refund of CENVAT credit, without following the due process for settling admissibility, prescribed under the Cenvat Credit Rules. Refund claim cannot be denied, when the conditions of the relevant notification are fulfilled - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim of the respondent regarding the nexus theory of input services.
2. Consideration of the eligibility of individual services as input services under the CENVAT credit rules.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The main issue in the judgment revolves around the rejection of the refund claim of the respondent, an exporter of services, due to the alleged lack of nexus between the input services and the output services. The Revenue argued that the 1st Appellate Authority did not consider the nexus theory of the input services, leading to the rejection of the refund claims. The Tribunal found that the 1st Appellate Authority's reasoning was sound and aligned with established case laws on the issue. The Tribunal noted that the lower adjudicating authority failed to provide cogent reasons for concluding the lack of nexus between input and output services, contrary to the appellant's arguments. The Tribunal, based on previous decisions, set aside the findings of the impugned order and deemed the services eligible for refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT credit rules.

Issue 2: The judgment also delves into the eligibility of individual services as input services under the CENVAT credit rules. The Tribunal emphasized that the eligibility of each service as an input service should be assessed based on its actual use, as per the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal highlighted that the denial of refund of CENVAT credit should not occur without following the due process for determining admissibility prescribed under the rules. The Tribunal clarified that the refund claim cannot be denied when the conditions of the relevant notification are met, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements for settling admissibility.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal to be lacking in merits and upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeals. The judgment underscores the significance of establishing a nexus between input and output services for refund claims and emphasizes the need to adhere to procedural requirements for determining the eligibility of services under the CENVAT credit rules.