2018 (3) TMI 605 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - N/N. 5/2006-CE(NT) r/w Rule 5 of CCR 2004 - export of services - denial of refund on the ground that these services cannot be considered as either consulting engineer s service or design service during the relevant period - Held that - the respondents did export taxable service, they are eligible for refund as claimed under Rule 5 - Though the respondents submitted that the original proceedings did not raise these issues, we note that sanction of refund would necessarily involve verification of documents along with required details - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) orders allowing refund under Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) r/w Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for services exported by the respondent.

Analysis:
The appeals by Revenue were against orders allowing refund to the respondent for services provided to foreign clients. The Commissioner (Appeals) had granted the benefit of exemption under Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) r/w Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue contended that the services in question did not qualify as designing services and that mere conversion of 2D images to 3D drawings did not constitute designing work. The Tribunal noted that a previous decision had classified the services as "consulting engineer's service" until September 2007. However, as the dispute was settled by the Tribunal for the period when design service was available for tax from June 1, 2007, the Tribunal held that the respondents were entitled to the refund for the taxable services exported by them. The Revenue's argument that there was no taxable service exported was rejected based on the Tribunal's earlier decision.

The Tribunal emphasized that the entire proceeding against the respondent was centered on the denial of refund based on classification only. Following the Tribunal's previous decision in the respondent's case, the Tribunal confirmed that the respondents did export taxable services and were eligible for the refund as claimed under Rule 5. The Tribunal acknowledged that in previous proceedings, the matter was remanded for verifications such as document checks and quantification of the refund. Despite the respondent's claim that these issues were not raised in the original proceedings, the Tribunal stressed that the sanction of refund necessitated document verification and detailed information.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's appeals lacked merit and dismissed them. Additionally, the miscellaneous application for changing the cause title of the appellant to Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate was allowed. The cross-objections filed by the respondent were disposed of accordingly.