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 of CENVAT credit for input services in tax services, emphasizes nexus requirement</h1> <h3>Akamai Technologies India Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore Service Tax-I And (Vice-Versa)</h3> Akamai Technologies India Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore Service Tax-I And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues:Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit for input services; Nexus between input services and output service; Eligibility for refund; Denial of refund by Commissioner (A); Challenge by Revenue; Definition of input services under CCR; Legal sustainability of impugned order; Dismissal of Revenue's appeals.Analysis:The appellant filed three appeals against the Order-in-Appeal allowing refund of accumulated CENVAT credit for certain input services but rejecting it for others. The Revenue also filed three appeals challenging the refund granted. The issue was identical in all six appeals, leading to their disposal through a common order.The appellant, an Export Oriented Unit, sought refund of service tax paid on various input services used in providing taxable output services. The Commissioner (A) partially allowed the refund, citing reasons like lack of impact on service quality and efficiency for denied services. The appellant argued for refund eligibility under the proviso to Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, supported by legal precedents and circulars emphasizing the nexus requirement for refunds.The Revenue contested the refund on grounds of input services not affecting export service quality, questioning the legal basis of the Commissioner (A)'s decision. The Tribunal examined the definition of input services pre-2011 and relevant case laws, notably observing the integral connection requirement for services to qualify as input services.Relying on legal precedents, including the Bombay High Court's ruling on business-related activities as integral to input services, the Tribunal concluded that all denied services were indeed input services, entitling the appellant to CENVAT credit refunds. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appellant's appeals subject to document verification. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed for lack of merit.In the final judgment pronounced on 29/12/2016, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to refund, emphasizing the legal sustainability of their decision based on the definition and interpretation of input services.
TaxTMI 