9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 768 - AT - Service Tax100% EOU - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - various input services - denial on account of nexus - export of services - Held that - all the impugned services on which refund has been denied fall in the definition of input service as held in various decisions - most of the services have been held to be input services in appellant s own case - with regard to wrong quantification of refund amount has observed that the original authority shall examine this aspect in de novo proceedings and shall apply the formula correctly while computing the refund claim amount - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (A) order remanding the matter for reconsideration of CENVAT Credit Rules provisions without findings on nexus and incorrect calculation. Analysis: The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit under Cochin SEZ, filed refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules for unutilized service tax credit on input services used for exported output services. The Commissioner (A) remanded the case without determining nexus between input and output services. Appellant argued the impugned order contradicted judicial precedents and definitions of "input service" were broad, covering business activities. They cited favorable decisions from previous periods and challenged the incorrect export turnover calculation by the department. Various input services were claimed to be validated by precedent cases. The AR supported the impugned order's findings. The Tribunal found the denied services fell under the "input service" definition based on cited precedents and appellant's own case. It noted the incorrect export turnover calculation and directed the adjudicating authority to apply the refund formula accurately. The matter was remanded for correct quantification and sanctioning of refunds as per the prescribed Notification. Consequently, all four appeals were allowed, and the case was remanded to the original authority for proper quantification and sanctioning of refunds. The judgment, delivered by S.S Garg, Judicial Member, concluded on 06/11/2017.
|
