2018 (2) TMI 1484 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal allowed for tax refund on services used in SEZ operations under Special Economic Zones Act, 2005.

The appeals by M/s Euronet Global Development Centre against the rejection of their refund claim for tax paid on services used for authorized operations ... SEZ unit - Refund of service tax paid - denial on the ground that the amount claimed had been availed as CENVAT credit by the appellant and that this availment had been suppressed in the documents accompanying the claim - Held that: - It is seen from the records that appellant had filed the claims between May 2014 and November 2014. The appellant had reversed the CENVAT credit so claimed only October 2014 - the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Comnr. of Central Excise & Customs Versus M/s. Precot Meridian Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that even if the MODVAT credit was utilised but, thereafter, refunded, it would amount to not utilising the said MODVAT credit. Appellant entitled to the refund subject to verification of reversal - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Entitlement to refund of tax on services availed for authorized operations under Special Economic Zones Act, 2005.Analysis:The judgment deals with five appeals by M/s Euronet Global Development Centre against the order-in-appeal of the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Pune. The main issue is the entitlement to refund of tax paid on services utilized for authorized operations approved under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. The appellant, as a unit in a special economic zone, is eligible for exemption from duties and taxes on inputs/input services used for authorized operations. The appellant sought a refund of &8377;3,55,786 for the period from October 2013 to September 2014, which was rejected on the grounds that the claimed amount had been availed as CENVAT credit and this availment was not disclosed in the refund claim documents.The lower authorities contended that the appellant's claim for refund was impermissible due to the utilization of tax on inputs/input services as CENVAT credit. The appellant argued that the reversal of CENVAT credit should not disqualify them from obtaining a refund, especially if the credit was not utilized. Citing precedents like Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur and Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. Precot Meridian Ltd, the appellant asserted that subsequent reversal of credit amounts to credit not being taken.The Authorized Representative countered by stating that the appellant failed to provide evidence of the reversal of CENVAT credit as claimed and that the initial availment was concealed in the refund claim. The records indicated that the appellant filed the claims between May 2014 and November 2014, with the reversal of CENVAT credit occurring only in October 2014. Referring to the decision in the case of Precot Meridian Ltd, the judgment highlighted that the appellant could be entitled to the refund upon verification of the reversal.Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for verifying the appellant's claim of CENVAT credit reversal. If the reversal is confirmed, the original authority is directed to reconsider the refund claim as if the credit had never been availed. The appeals were allowed by way of remand to the original authority, enabling a thorough examination of the reversal of CENVAT credit before deciding on the refund claim.