2019 (4) TMI 329 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - Car Parking Charges - Held that - It is not disputed that the appellants have availed the said charges for car parking facilities within their premises. It is very much necessary for appellants to have this service - the rejection of refund on Car Parking Charges is unjustified. Other issues requires verification by the refund sanctioning authority - Appeal is thus partly allowed and partly remanded.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claim rejection on various grounds including Car Parking Charges, lack of related invoices, time-barred claim, failure to debit credit before filing refund claim, and zero balance in Cenvat Credit account.

Analysis:
1. Refund Rejection on Car Parking Charges:
The appellant's claim for refund of Car Parking Charges was rejected, but the tribunal found this rejection unjustified. It was acknowledged that the appellant availed car parking services within their premises, which were necessary for their operations. Consequently, the rejection of the refund claim related to Car Parking Charges was set aside.

2. Refund Rejection on Other Grounds:
The tribunal noted that most of the issues raised for rejecting the refund claim required verification by the refund sanctioning authority. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the authority for further examination. The appellant's contentions, along with the decisions cited, were to be considered during this review process. The appellant was granted an opportunity to provide additional evidence and present their case in a personal hearing.

3. Final Decision:
The tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the rejection of the refund claim concerning Car Parking Charges. However, the other issues were remanded to the refund sanctioning authority for reevaluation. The authority was instructed to consider the appellant's arguments and evidence, along with the cited legal precedents. The appellant was granted a chance for a personal hearing to support their case effectively. The impugned order was modified accordingly to reflect the decisions made during the appeal process.