2017 (3) TMI 366 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants refund for manufacturing company's input services under CENVAT Credit Rules

M/s. Essilor Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and granting relief subject to verification of documents by the original authority. ... 100% EOU - Refund claim - CENVAT credit - air travel agency service - banking and financial service - Business Auxiliary Service - Catering service - General Insurance Service - Repair and Maintenance and testing services - recruitment and training service - manpower supply service - personality development service - renting of tangible goods service - and management or business consultancy service - Held that: - the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by various decisions where on similar issues, refund was allowed - I allow the appeals of the appellant by setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals with consequential relief, if any, subject to verification of the documents by the original authority - appeal allowed by way of refund. Issues:- Appeals against orders passed by Commissioner (A) partially allowing department's appeal and rejecting appellant's appeals.- Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.- Disallowance of CENVAT credit on various input services.- Applicability of case laws allowing CENVAT credit/refund on specific services.- Tribunal's previous decisions in favor of the appellant on input services.Analysis:1. The appellant filed five appeals against orders by Commissioner (A) partially allowing department's appeal and rejecting appellant's appeals. The appeals were related to refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for different periods and amounts.2. The appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing spectacle lenses, sought refund of CENVAT Credit. The adjudicating authority allowed refund in some cases but rejected it for various input services. The department appealed before Commissioner (A), who partially allowed refunds on certain services but disallowed credit on services like air travel agency, banking, catering, insurance, and others.3. The appellant argued that the services for which refund was denied were considered as input services by various courts, citing specific case laws supporting their claim. They also referred to previous Tribunal decisions in their favor on similar input services.4. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order, while the appellant's counsel relied on case laws and previous Tribunal decisions to support their case.5. The Tribunal, after considering submissions and case laws cited, found the issue in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and granting relief subject to verification of documents by the original authority.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision based on case laws and previous decisions.