9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1026 - AT - Service TaxSEZ unit - refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - input service - exports in accordance with rule 6(a) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - POPOS Rules - case of Revenue is that such service did not confirm to the definition of exports was a consequence of the finding that the place of provision of service which should be outside India as per Place of Provision of Service Rules 2012 was not - Held that - The destination of the services rendered by the appellant being undoubtedly the location of overseas clients, it necessarily follows that the domestic tax should not be carried outside the country. This requires, refund of such tax, which in the present case, is represented by accumulated CENVAT credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Requirement of conformity of destination of output service to the definition of "exports" for refund of accumulated CENVAT credit in a Special Economic Zone. Analysis: 1. The case involved four appeals against the order-in-appeal of the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-II), Mumbai regarding the requirement of conformity of destination of output service to the definition of "exports" under rule 6(a) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 for refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by a unit in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). 2. The appellant, a unit within SEEPZ, SEZ, Mumbai, filed refund claims for accumulated CENVAT credit for four quarters. The first appellate authority denied the refund, stating that the activity did not conform to all parameters of rule 6(a) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, leading to disallowance of the refund claims. The appellant challenged this denial before the Tribunal. 3. Arguments were made citing various provisions of the law, including the Finance Act, 1994, Service Tax Rules, 1994, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012, and relevant judicial decisions. The Tribunal clarified that decisions of the Advance Rulings Authority are not binding, and reliance was placed on previous judgments to support the appellant's claim for refund. 4. The Tribunal highlighted the distinction between the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005, emphasizing that the SEZ Act prevails over other laws. As per the SEZ Act, the appellant's activity qualified as exports, entitling them to the refund of accumulated CENVAT credit. 5. Regarding the entitlement to refund of CENVAT credit, it was noted that SEZ units are exempt from duties and taxes on goods and services for authorized operations. The appellant's accumulation of input credit was acknowledged, and the Tribunal emphasized the destination-based nature of service tax, supporting the appellant's claim for refund under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 6. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellant based on the destination of services rendered to overseas clients, affirming the entitlement to refund of accumulated CENVAT credit. This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, addressing the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant.
|
