2017 (8) TMI 895 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal confirms eligibility for input service refund under CENVAT Credit Rules

The Tribunal affirmed the eligibility of the assessee for a refund of input services related to manufacturing under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The ... 100% EOU - Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit - input services - telephone, travel, professional, catering, technical testing, analysis plant management, courier, security, courier, facility keeping, labour contract and plant R & M contractor, catering, etc. which have been cleared for export - Held that: - all the impugned services fall in the definition of 'input service' as provided in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 as laid down in assessee's own case Apotex Pharmachem India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore [2016 (11) TMI 578 - CESTAT BANGALORE] - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Eligibility of the assessee for refund of input services related to manufacture.2. Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (A)'s order allowing the assessee's refund claim for input services related to manufacture. The Revenue contended that the services in question did not qualify as 'input services.' The respondent, an EOU engaged in manufacturing and export of pharmaceutical products, sought refund of service tax paid on various services like telephone, travel, professional, catering, etc., used for manufacturing and export. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed a portion of the claimed amount, stating it was not related to manufacturing. The Commissioner (A) overturned this decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal.2. The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties. The Revenue argued that the services did not meet the definition of 'input service' as they were not directly connected to manufacturing. In contrast, the respondent's counsel cited previous decisions where similar services were considered 'input services.' The Tribunal examined these arguments and previous judgments. It concluded that all the disputed services fell within the definition of 'input service' as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the eligibility of the assessee for a refund of input services related to manufacturing, based on the interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The decision was supported by previous judgments and the specific application of Rule 2(l) to the services in question.