2018 (6) TMI 383 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax credit paid on various input services - the services were used for rendering export of output service - Whether computation of refund is correct in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) read with Rule 5 of the CCR 2004? - Held that - This issue needs reconsideration by the first appellate authority as appellant had produced re-conciliation statement indicating the correct amount of refund which needs to be calculated but the first appellate authority in the impugned order has not passed any observations or given any reasoning either to accept or to reject it - matter on remand. Refund claim - input services - Whether refund of input services viz. Air Travel agent services, accommodation services and cargo handling services has been denied correctly? - Held that - The appellant has been taking a consistent stand that air travel, accommodation services were utilised for use of the employees at various locations to render output services which were exported - these services are squarely covered as eligible by the judgement in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd 2016 (8) TMI 123 - CESTAT MUMBAI and Accenture Service Pvt Ltd 2015 (3) TMI 1114 - CESTAT MUMBAI - refund allowed. Whether the refund of input services has been correctly denied on the ground that the invoices contained address, which was not mentioned in Service Tax Registration? - Held that - It is the claim of the Learned Counsel that the appellants were functioning from this premises earlier and due to which there was a change in the premises and the service invoices raised by the input service providers for the service rendered by them were issued at the old address - the facts need to be reconsidered - matter on remand. Time limitation - Whether the refund claim is time barred? - Held that - Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Infotech Pvt Ltd 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE has now settled the law which is that a refund application for service tax credit availed on the input services can be filed within one year from the end of the quarter from which services are exported - in the present case, the date of filing of the refund claim is within one year of the end of the specific quarters - refund claim is not barred by time. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Computation of refund under Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) and Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
2. Denial of refund for input services like Air Travel agent services, accommodation services, and cargo handling services
3. Denial of refund for input services due to address mismatch on invoices
4. Time limitation for filing refund claims

Analysis:

1. The appellant-assessee appealed against the rejection of their refund claim for service tax credit on input services used for exporting output services. The Revenue appealed against the first appellate authority's decision that the refund claims were filed within the time limit. The issues for consideration were:
- Correct computation of refund under relevant provisions
- Denial of refund for specific input services
- Denial of refund due to address discrepancies on invoices
- Time limitation for filing refund claims.

2. The learned Counsel cited various Tribunal decisions to support their arguments on settled issues related to the computation of refund and time limitation for filing claims. The matter was remanded back to the first appellate authority for reconsideration of the correct refund amount calculation as no reasoning was provided in the impugned order.

3. Regarding the eligibility of CENVAT credit on travel, accommodation, and cargo handling services, the Departmental Representative argued against their use for final output services. However, the appellant consistently maintained that these services were indeed utilized for rendering exported output services, as supported by previous judgments.

4. The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim for refund on air travel, accommodation services, and cargo handling services was valid based on the evidence provided. The issue of cargo handling services was also settled by previous judgments, affirming the appellant's eligibility for the claimed refund amount.

5. The denial of input services due to address discrepancies on invoices was explained by the Learned Counsel, attributing it to a change in premises. The Tribunal directed the appellant to provide evidence before the lower authority for reconsideration of this issue.

6. Regarding the time limitation for filing refund claims, the Tribunal followed the decision of the Larger Bench, allowing the refund application within one year from the end of the quarter from which services are exported. As the refund claim was filed within the specified period, the issue was held in favor of the appellant.

7. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of based on the detailed analysis and considerations provided for each issue, ensuring a fair and just decision in accordance with the law.