2023 (6) TMI 900 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund of Cenvat Credit on various services - export of service - Period October, 2016 to June, 2017 - rejection of refund on the ground of nexus - HELD THAT - In the matter of M/S. BNP PARIBAS INDIA SOLUTIONS P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST, MUMBAI EAST 2020 (2) TMI 224 - CESTAT MUMBAI this Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee therein allowed the refund claim u/s. 5 ibid by holding that since the provisions of Rule 14 ibid has not been invoked, the refund of Cenvat credit as claimed by the Appellant under Rule 5 ibid cannot be denied. Therefore it is settle legal position that in absence of any notice for recovery as provided by Rule 14 ibid the refund claimed by the assessee under Rule 5 cannot be denied. Nothing contrary has been produced on record. The authorities below have erred in rejecting the refund claim of the appellant. Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The denial of refund of Cenvat Credit on various services under Rule 5, Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 against export of service from October 2016 to June 2017.

Comprehensive details:
The appellants, engaged in providing Business Auxiliary Service to customers abroad, filed three refund applications during the period in dispute. The adjudicating authority sanctioned part refund but rejected a refund claim of Rs. 19,64,416 on grounds including 'no nexus'. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) partly rejected the refund claim, sanctioning Rs. 77,186 and rejecting Rs. 18,87,230.

The Chartered Accountant for the appellants argued that Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not followed in rejecting the refund claim, citing previous Tribunal decisions granting relief to the appellant. The Authorised Representative supported the findings in the impugned order.

The Tribunal considered various case laws, including Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC,CE&ST, and BNP Paribas India Solution Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. CGST, Mumbai East, emphasizing that denial of Cenvat credit can only be done under Rule 14 and not Rule 5. The Tribunal found that the authorities erred in rejecting the refund claim and allowed the appeals filed by the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, granting the refund claim in accordance with the law. The decision was pronounced in open Court on 19.06.2023.