2022 (11) TMI 1188 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund of service tax - export of services - organizing of cricket match for employees - input services or not - denial on the ground of lack of nexus with output services - HELD THAT - Both the lower authorities have held that organizing of cricket match for employees was not relevant to the export of service. Any sporting activity has the effect of rejuvenating the minds and rendering them more fit for efficient working. Therefore, it was incorrect to consider the organizing of cricket tournament to be unrelated to the activities of the appellant. As far as the evidence of credit availed on transportation of employees, the records do not indicate any bills issued by service provider; supply of fuel is not supply of input service and the returns do not indicate credit having been taken on inputs for the relevant period. The impugned order is set aside except to the extent of ₹ 1,735/- pertaining to fuel bills and directing that the refund claim for remaining amount be allowed. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowed claim of refund under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 attributable to export of services in specific quarters.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the order disallowing a claim of refund under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 related to the export of services in the quarters from July 2016 to June 2017. The appellant argued that certain 'input services' were wrongly deemed unrelated to the 'output service' provided to overseas entities. The appellant cited precedents to support the relevance of these services to exports. However, the Authorized Representative contended that no evidence was provided by the claimants to establish the nexus between the services and the exported services.

The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, notably the case of 24/7 Customer Pvt Ltd, to emphasize that a lack of nexus between input and output services was the sole ground for rejecting the refund claim. It was noted that the Department had not questioned the services when CENVAT credit was initially taken, and therefore, could not challenge them during the refund claim. The Tribunal highlighted that the amended Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules did not mandate a direct correlation between exported output services and input services. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, except for a specific amount related to fuel bills, on the basis that lack of nexus alone could not deny the refund claim.

The lower authorities had previously held that organizing a cricket match for employees was irrelevant to the export of services. However, the Tribunal disagreed, noting that such activities could enhance employee efficiency. Regarding the transportation of employees, lack of evidence regarding service provider bills and the nature of the services rendered led to the rejection of this part of the claim. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, except for a minor amount, and directed the refund claim for the remaining sum to be allowed. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.