2018 (5) TMI 1364 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - Rule 5 of the CCR 2004 read with N/N. 5/2006-CE (NT) dt. 14.03.2006 - Held that - The lower appellate authority has analyzed each of the issues one by one and has come to a reasoned finding. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also directed the assessee to file separate refund claims - On the issue of eligibility of various input services which the Revenue has found fault, the matter is now well settled in a number of decisions that the impugned credits related to the inputs services / inputs are very much eligible. The controversy concerning relevant date to be reckoned for calculating the period prescribed for filing refund claim is also settled in favor of the respondents - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on various grounds including time bar, eligibility of service tax, and discrepancies in credit availed. Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the rejection and directing separate refund claims for each unit. Revenue appealing against the decision on grounds of lack of proof of credit availment, time bar, and eligibility of certain credits.

Analysis:
The case involved a refund claim by a manufacturing company for unutilized input service credit under CCR 2004. The lower adjudicating authority rejected the claim citing reasons such as non-availability of credit evidence, time bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, and discrepancies in credit availed. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the rejection, directing separate refund claims for each unit and ordering verification and processing of the claims. The Revenue appealed, arguing lack of proof of credit availment, time bar issues, and disputing the eligibility of certain credits.

The appellate tribunal analyzed the grounds of appeal by the Revenue and found them lacking merit. The lower appellate authority had examined each issue thoroughly and provided reasoned findings. The tribunal noted that the eligibility of input services for credit had been settled in previous decisions, and the controversy over the relevant date for filing refund claims favored the respondents. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to the absence of any identified infirmity in the order.

In conclusion, the tribunal sustained the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondents, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The case highlighted the importance of providing proper documentation for credit availment, resolving time bar issues, and establishing the eligibility of various credits in accordance with relevant legal provisions and precedents.