2019 (3) TMI 48 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - House Keeping Services - Held that - Reliance was placed in the case of WIPRO LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2017 (5) TMI 188 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that Landscaping of factory or garden certainly would fall within the concept of modernization, renovation, repair, etc. of the office premises. At any rate, the credit rating of an industry is depended upon how the factory is maintained inside and outside the premises - following the said decision, the credit is allowed. Refund of unutilized input service credit - date of filing of refund claim - Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 - Held that - The delay is there only on account of the receipt of appellant s application for refund and this fact is duly supported by the Legacy Cell letter dated 18.07.2017 in C.No. IV/16/02/2017-Misc.Leg.RF/ RB-II issued by the Office of the Commissioner Goods and Service Tax, Chennai-South Commissionerate, wherein the date of claim of the appellant for refund has been acknowledged as 27.06.2017 - there is no finding by the lower authorities as to the non-compliance with any of the provisions of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 for rejecting appellant s claim. This, coupled with date of acknowledgement by the Legacy Cell, makes it very clear that the appellant s claim for refund was in order and is even so, in terms of Notifications referred to in the Order-in-Original - refund cannot be rejected on this ground. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of cenvat credit on "House Keeping Services"
2. Refund of unutilized input service credit under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012

Analysis:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on "House Keeping Services":
The appellant contended that denial of cenvat credit on "House Keeping Services" was unjustified. The Ld. Consultant argued that the denial should not stand based on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in a specific case. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. Consultant, citing judicial precedence, and ruled in favor of the appellant on this issue.

2. Refund Claim Date Dispute:
Regarding the date of filing the refund claim, the appellant claimed to have submitted the application on 27.06.2017, while the authorities maintained that it was filed on 12.07.2017. The appellant explained the delay as being due to the Department's reorganization and relocation on account of GST migration. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including a Legacy Cell letter acknowledging the appellant's claim date as 27.06.2017. It noted the lack of findings on non-compliance with Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 by the lower authorities and concluded that the delay was attributable to the Department's processing rather than the appellant's filing. The Tribunal found the rejection of the claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's contentions on both issues, ruling in favor of granting the cenvat credit on "House Keeping Services" and accepting the refund claim date as per the appellant's submission. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal provisions and acknowledged the appellant's compliance with the relevant regulations.