2017 (1) TMI 1236 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal grants refund of CENVAT credit for input services in tax services, emphasizes nexus requirement

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeals seeking refund of accumulated CENVAT credit for input services used in providing taxable output services. The ... 100% EOU - Refund claim of CENVAT credit - rejection on the ground that these services do not affect the quality and efficiency of the export services and secondly the details of usage of input services is not furnished - Held that: - the impugned order is not sustainable in law in view of the fact that all the services for which CENVAT credit of service tax has been denied are in fact input services and the assessee is entitled to get refund of CENVAT credit lying unutilized in the CENVAT credit account and therefore, I set aside the impugned order by allowing the assessees appeals subject to verification of the documents by the original authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. 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.