2021 (11) TMI 552 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of accumulated cenvat credit - rejection of refund claim on the ground that the services did not quantify as an essential input service - Advertising Agency Services - Business Auxiliary Services - Convention Services - Design Services - Event Management Services - Pandal or Shamiana Services - Public Relations Management Service - Real Estate Agent and Consultant Services - HELD THAT - The issue has already been gone into and decided by various fora and hence, the same is no more res integra. This Bench has considered the relevance of most of the above services including the issue of nexus in various decisions including the cases of the same appellant, for different periods in 24/7 CUSTOMER PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU EAST 2021 (3) TMI 414 - CESTAT BANGALORE where this Bench takes care of the nexus test and thus holds good for all the input services involved, except Advertising Agency Services, Pandal or Shamiana Services and Real Estate Agent and Consultant Services. In view these orders, the denial of refund in respect of the input services except Advertising Agency Services, Pandal or Shamiana Services and Real Estate Agent and Consultant Services appears to be bad. Advertising Agency Services - HELD THAT - This issue has been held to be an essential input service in the case of EARTLAND BANGALORE TRANSCRIPTION SER. (P) LTD. VERSUS CST., BANGALORE 2010 (10) TMI 428 - CESTAT, BANGALORE where it was held that the refund on the same is allowed - the denial of input service credit in the impugned order appears to be bad. Pandal or Shamiana Service - HELD THAT - The appellant has only explained that the same are availed for staff events - the very ratio in the case of IDEA CELLULAR LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT-I 2011 (1) TMI 811 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI would equally apply here as well, and hence this service is also held to be ineligible service - denial is held to be bad in law. Real Estate Agent and Consultant Service - HELD THAT - The appellant has claimed that the said service was availed for renting of office space but however, no explanation is made available as to the nature or spaces that are rented out during the period under challenge and hence, no interference is called for. Most of the services are held to be eligible/essential input services, following the ratio laid down in various orders the denial of cenvat credit on all the input services except Real Estate Agent and Consultant Service is held to be bad in law.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund of accumulated cenvat credit.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in export of Call Centre Services and Renting of Immovable Property Services, claimed a refund of accumulated cenvat credit. The refund claim was initially rejected by the adjudicating authority but allowed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) with some services being denied refund as they were not considered essential input services. The appellant appealed against this partial denial.

The impugned order rejected the credit of input services for various services including Advertising Agency Services, Business Auxiliary Services, Convention Services, Design Services, Event Management Services, Pandal or Shamiana Services, Public Relations Management Service, and Real Estate Agent and Consultant Services. The issue of nexus between input services and exported output services was a key consideration. The Tribunal had previously addressed similar issues in other cases involving the same appellant and held that the Department cannot question the input services at the time of claiming a refund.

The Tribunal found that most of the services in question were considered eligible or essential input services in previous orders, except for Advertising Agency Services, Pandal or Shamiana Services, and Real Estate Agent and Consultant Services. The denial of cenvat credit for these services was deemed unlawful based on established precedents and the nexus test. Advertising Agency Services were deemed essential based on previous case law, while Pandal or Shamiana Services were considered ineligible as the appellant failed to provide sufficient explanation. The Real Estate Agent and Consultant Service denial was upheld due to lack of information on the nature of rented spaces.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and disposed of the appeal by holding that the denial of cenvat credit on all input services except Real Estate Agent and Consultant Service was unjustified in law. The decision was based on the established legal principles and precedents discussed in the judgment.