2018 (7) TMI 698 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal upholds refund eligibility, dismisses department challenge on Rule 4A compliance

The Tribunal upheld the respondent's eligibility for a refund of un-utilized credit of input services, dismissing the department's challenge on Rule 4A ... Refund of un-utilized CENVAT credit - denial of refund on the ground that respondent had not raised invoice within 14 days of rendering the service - Held that:- The issue is settled in respondent own case COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. SCOPE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. (VICE-VERSA) [2018 (7) TMI 91 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that raising invoices within 14 days is a mere procedural requirement and not such condition has been laid in N/N. 5/2006 - refund cannot be rejected on this ground. Refund claim - credit on ‘Rent a Cab’ and Outdoor catering services’ were held to be not eleigible - Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Turbo Energy Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 632 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that these services are eligible for credit - refund cannot be rejected. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues: Refund claim for un-utilized credit of input services, eligibility for refund under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, eligibility of credit on 'rent a cab' service and outdoor catering services.The judgment pertains to a refund claim for un-utilized credit of input services. The original authority sanctioned a partial refund, which was challenged by the department. The main issue raised by the department was that the respondent did not follow Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules by not raising invoices within 14 days of rendering services. However, it was noted that a similar issue was settled in favor of the respondent in their own case previously. The Tribunal held that the requirement of raising invoices within 14 days is a procedural matter and not a condition specified in Notification No. 5/2006. Additionally, the department contested the eligibility of credit on 'rent a cab' service and outdoor catering services. Citing relevant case laws, it was established that these services are indeed eligible for credit. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds for interference and dismissed the appeal filed by the department.In summary, the judgment affirms the eligibility of the respondent for the refund of un-utilized credit of input services, rejects the department's argument regarding Rule 4A compliance, and upholds the eligibility of credit on 'rent a cab' service and outdoor catering services based on established case laws.