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 allows refund of unutilized CENVAT credit for EOU</h1> <h3>M/s. Schmetz India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax Bangalore-III</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the department's objections and allowing all seven appeals for the refund of unutilized CENVAT ... 100% EOU - refund claim u/r 5 of CCR, 2004 - utilization of CENVAT credit - N/N. 5/2006-CE dated 14.3.2006 - refund claim on the ground that appellant being a 100% EOU is not in a position to utilise the CENVAT credit availed on input and input services in terms of provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - is refund claim justified? - Held that: - the impugned order is not sustainable in law as all the services involved in the present appeals have been held to be input services by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. Issues:Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on input services for an EOU under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.Analysis:1. Identical Issue in Seven Appeals: The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing and exporting industrial sewing machine needles, filed seven appeals regarding the refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on input services. The appeals were disposed of collectively due to the identical issue in all seven cases.2. Refund Claim Details: The appellant filed refund claims for different periods, supported by relevant documents, under Notification No.5/2006 - CE. The refund was sought for service tax paid on input services, as the EOU could not utilize the CENVAT credit as per CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.3. Department's Objections: The department contested the refund orders, alleging that the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund without verifying the usage of input services in manufacturing the final product. The department argued that there was a lack of evidence showing the input services' utilization in the production process.4. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant contended that the Commissioner erred in remanding the case and failed to acknowledge the detailed findings of the adjudicating authority. The appellant argued that once CENVAT credit was availed without objection, the refund proceedings should not question the nature of services or goods as inputs.5. Legal Precedents: The appellant relied on various case laws to support the utilization of input services, such as telephone service, courier service, export clearance, job work charges, professional charges, repair and maintenance, security service, service (sewage water treatment plant), and travel service.6. Judgment: After reviewing the submissions and legal precedents, the Tribunal found that all services for which CENVAT credit was denied had been recognized as input services in previous Tribunal and High Court decisions. Noting that the Commissioner had previously allowed refunds for similar services without appeal from the department, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing all seven appeals with consequential relief.7. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision emphasized the consistent recognition of the disputed services as input services in legal precedents, leading to the setting aside of the department's objections and granting the appellant's refund claims for unutilized CENVAT credit on input services.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
