9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1058 - AT - Service TaxRefund of unutilized CENVAT credit - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - denial on the premise that the services in question on which Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant are not input service as per Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004 - Held that - at the time of availment of Cenvat Credit, it has not been disputed to the appellant that these are not input services on which they have availed Cenvat Credit. Only at the time of filing of refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it has been disputed. As at the time of availment of Cenvat Credit, it has not been disputed, therefore, the refund claim can t be denied merely on the ground that of services in question were not input services as held by this Tribunal in the case of EXL Service. Com (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida 2017 (8) TMI 1002-CESTAT ALLAHABAD . Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against denial of refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for export of services. Analysis: The appellant, an exporter of services, filed a refund claim of unutilised Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The claim was rejected on the grounds that the services in question were not considered input services as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, it was noted that at the time of availing the Cenvat Credit, there was no dispute regarding the nature of the services. The dispute arose only during the filing of the refund claim. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and held that since there was no dispute at the time of availing the credit, the refund claim cannot be denied solely on the basis that the services were later deemed not to be input services. The Tribunal emphasized that it cannot be challenged at this stage that the services for which Cenvat Credit was availed are not input services. Therefore, the impugned order denying the refund claim was set aside, and the refund claim filed by the appellant was allowed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
|
