2019 (7) TMI 909 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - Refund claim of un-utilized cenvat credit - cenvat credit on Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) - no proceedings were initiated against the respondent for denial of cenvat credit on Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) - whether at the stage of filing refund claim of un-utilized cenvat credit in their cenvat credit account could be challenged? HELD THAT - The appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 11.7.2018 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal is not maintainable before this Court, the monetary limit being below ₹ 50,00,000/-. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in refiling the appeal.
2. Appeal against the order passed by Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. Substantial questions of law raised in the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with the consideration of an application seeking condonation of delay in refiling the appeal. The delay of 68 days is condoned based on the reasons stated in the application.

2. The main case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal challenging the Order in Appeal dated 19.10.2016, which allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that no proceedings were initiated against the respondent for denial of cenvat credit on Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII).

3. Several substantial questions of law are raised in the present appeal:
- Whether the Tribunal's order is against the law and untenable.
- Whether Professional Indemnity Insurance service qualifies as an "input service" for availing Cenvat Credit.
- Whether PII service, used after delivering the output service, falls under the definition of input service.
- Whether a service not falling under the definition of input service can still be termed as such for availing Cenvat Credit.
- Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the credit claimed on account of PII cannot be challenged due to no proceedings initiated against the respondent.
- Whether non-challenge at the credit availment stage bars rejecting the refund claim of unutilized CENVAT Credit.

4. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel acknowledges that the appeal is not maintainable before the High Court due to monetary limits set by the Ministry of Finance. Consequently, the appellant withdraws the appeal, but the raised questions of law remain open for future consideration.

5. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in light of the monetary limit instructions, with the questions of law left unresolved for potential future litigation.