2022 (11) TMI 339 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - input services used for providing e-publishing service which in effect was export of service - rejection of refund claims holding that the foreign remittances though were made into the same account were in three different names - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification 27/2012 - HELD THAT - It is seen from the Order in Original dated 25.2.2021 that the appellant has been granted refund and the issue with regard to the remittances in different names has been discussed in detail. The appellant has made a request that they may be given a chance to furnish documents to explain how the remittances have been made. The matter requires to be remanded to the original authority who is directed to look into the orders passed by the authorities in the appellant s own case for refund claims and consider the same as expeditiously as possible - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized credit due to foreign remittances in different names.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in e-publishing services, filed refund applications for unutilized CENVAT credit related to input services for export of services. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claims citing foreign remittances in different names, despite acknowledging the export nature of services. The appellant sought remand to establish remittance details.

The appellant's counsel argued that subsequent refund claims were approved, presenting Order in Original No. 1/2021 as evidence. The appellant aimed to prove remittances were made in their name, requesting remand to the original authority for further review.

The learned AR supported the impugned order's findings, leading to a hearing where both sides presented their arguments. The key issue revolved around the rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, considering Notification 27/2012. Notably, a previous order dated 25.2.2021 granted the appellant a refund, addressing the remittance discrepancy. Consequently, the tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original authority for a detailed review based on previous refund orders, allowing the appeals by remand.

In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, directing the original authority to expedite the review process based on past refund claim approvals, emphasizing the need for clarity on remittance details.