2019 (12) TMI 854 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilised CENVAT Credit - Input services - construction services - telephone services - canteen services - housekeeping services - group health insurance - the disputed period is prior to 01.04.2011 - HELD THAT - The definition of input services included the words activities relating to business . Various decisions of the tribunal has held that the services availed for activities relating to business are eligible for credit/refund. In the appellant s own case COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX HYDERABAD-IV COMMISSIONERATE VERSUS M/S HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING (P) LTD. 2015 (3) TMI 1049 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT , the credit in respect construction services has been allowed. Further the credit in respect of telephone services, canteen services, house keeping services and group health insurance services has been allowed by the department for different periods. The rejection of refund claim in respect of the services is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection for construction services, telephone services, canteen services, housekeeping services, and group health insurance.

In this case, the appellants filed a refund claim under Rule 5 for unutilized CENVAT Credit. The Original Authority rejected part of the refund claim, specifically for construction services, telephone services, canteen services, housekeeping services, and group health insurance. The appellants appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected the refund for these services. The main contention was whether these services qualified as input services under the definition in force before April 1, 2011. The appellant argued that the services were used for their business of providing output services that were exported, relying on previous tribunal decisions and a High Court ruling in their favor. The appellant's counsel pointed out that the credit for construction services was previously allowed by the Tribunal. The A.R. for the Respondent supported the findings in the impugned order.

After hearing both sides, the tribunal found that the rejection of the refund claim for the disputed services was unjustified. The definition of input services before April 1, 2011, included 'activities relating to business,' and various tribunal decisions had held that services availed for such activities were eligible for credit/refund. The tribunal noted that in the appellant's own case, credit for construction services had been allowed previously. Additionally, the department had allowed credit for telephone services, canteen services, housekeeping services, and group health insurance services for different periods. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent of the credit rejected for the mentioned services and allowed the appeal with consequential relief if any.