TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Grants Refund under CENVAT Credit Rules: Nexus between Input and Output Services</h1> <h3>INGERSOLL-RAND INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) LTD. Versus C.S.T., BANGALORE</h3> INGERSOLL-RAND INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) LTD. Versus C.S.T., BANGALORE - 2015 (38) S.T.R. 771 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period from January 2006 to March 2006.2. Admissibility of credit and refund for services provided.3. Nexus between input services and output services for refund eligibility.4. Eligibility for refund claim prior to 14-3-2006.Analysis:1. The Appellant claimed a refund of &8377; 2,95,820/- under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for the period from January 2006 to March 2006, citing inability to utilize the CENVAT credit for Service Tax/duty payment. The refund claim was rejected based on various grounds.2. The rejection of the claim was initially based on the argument that services provided were in the nature of information technology software service, which was exempt, making the credit and refund inadmissible. However, a previous order highlighted that a refund claim cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of the finished service being exempt.3. The claim was further rejected on the premise that certain services lacked a nexus with the output services. After a detailed examination of services like clearing and forwarding agents, commercial training, consulting engineer, courier agency, and others, it was determined that the appellants were able to establish a nexus between these services and the output services, making them eligible for the refund.4. Regarding the refund claim before 14-3-2006, when a Notification was issued for sanctioning refunds of input services, a previous decision provided clarity. The Tribunal found the appellant eligible for the refund, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the various grounds on which the refund claim was initially rejected, emphasizing the importance of establishing a nexus between input and output services for refund eligibility. The decision provided clarity on admissibility criteria and highlighted the significance of previous orders in determining refund eligibility under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
TaxTMI 