2023 (5) TMI 763 - AT - Service Tax

Parallel proceedings - Cash refund of accumulated CENVAT credit - consequently, admissibility of CENVAT credit on the input services availed by the appellant also questioned by way of issuance of show-cause notice for the said period - HELD THAT - After filing cash refund claims of the accumulated CENVAT credit by the appellant during the relevant period, proceedings were also initiated simultaneously proposing denial of CENVAT credit and its recovery by way of issuance of show-cause notice more or less on the same grounds on which refund claims were proposed to be denied. This Tribunal in TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX 2014 (9) TMI 1135 - CESTAT, BANGALORE examined the very same grounds of objections of the revenue on the admissibility of cash refund claims of accumulated CENVAT credit on export of service and remanded the matter after recording the principles to be followed in deciding the refund claims - It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the said Order of the tribunal refund claims were adjudicated and allowed to the appellant vide de novo order dated 01.5.2017 which covers one month of the present demand notice i.e., June 2008. The learned advocate submits that for the subsequent period, this Tribunal following the earlier order in TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD remanded the issue for de novo consideration. However, the same is pending adjudication. In these circumstances, the submissions for remanding the matter to consider the demand notice along with refund claims pending de novo adjudication before the Commissioner seems to be relevant and appropriate - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the admissibility of refund claims for the period April 2008 to June 2008, denial and recovery of CENVAT credit availed on input services for the period June 2008 to December 2008, and the remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication.

Admissibility of refund claims for the period April 2008 to June 2008:
The appellant had filed cash refund of accumulated CENVAT credit for the period June 2008 to December 2008 under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. The refund claims for the period April 2008 to June 2008 were initially rejected, leading to the questioning of the admissibility of CENVAT credit on input services for the appellant. The matter was remanded by the Tribunal for de novo adjudication, resulting in the sanctioning of cash refund for a significant amount and a miniscule amount being rejected. The Commissioner is yet to adjudicate the admissibility of refund for the period July 2008 to December 2008. The appellant requested a remand to decide the recovery of CENVAT credit for the same period along with the pending de novo adjudication of the refund claims. The Revenue did not dispute these facts and agreed to remand the matter for consideration along with the pending refund claims.

Denial and recovery of CENVAT credit availed on input services for the period June 2008 to December 2008:
After filing cash refund claims for accumulated CENVAT credit, proceedings were initiated proposing denial and recovery of CENVAT credit on input services for the period June 2008 to December 2008. The Tribunal had previously examined similar grounds of objections regarding the admissibility of cash refund claims and remanded the matter for further consideration. The Tribunal decided to remand the present demand proceedings to the Commissioner to consider along with the refund claims for the period July 2008 to December 2008. The appellant will have an opportunity for a hearing to present their case. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.