2022 (9) TMI 1156 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal allows refund appeal for specific services, remands others for fresh consideration

M/s. Olam Information Services Private Limited Versus Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Chennai

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the denial of refund for specific services like Air Travel Agent Service, Car Parking Service, ... Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit of the Service Tax paid - input services - Air Travel Agent Service - Car Parking Service - Hotel Service - Foreign Exchange Service - Rent-a-cab Service - Construction Service - Event Management Service. HELD THAT:- The denial of CENVAT Credit on the impugned services relating to Air Travel Agent Service, Car Parking Service, Event Management Service, Rent-a-cab Service and Foreign Exchange Service is required to be allowed since the denial is held to be incorrect. To this extent, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the claim of the appellant is directed to be allowed. Hotel Services - HELD THAT:- This Bench in the earlier Order had remanded the issue for fresh consideration to the file of the Adjudicating Authority and hence, the same is required to be followed here as well. This issue, therefore, is allowed by way of remand. Construction Service - HELD THAT:- There are no supporting evidences other than a mere statement that the said service is not for the construction of a building or civil structure. In the absence of documents in support in this regard to say that the construction involved only repairs and maintenance or bringing up temporary structures, this matter also requires to be looked into again by the Adjudicating Authority. This issue is also, therefore, allowed by way of remand to the file of the Adjudicating Authority, however, with a direction to the appellant to offer all relevant documents in support of its claim. Denial of refund an amount of Rs.1,10,742/-, being not debited from the Education and Secondary Education Cess account - HELD THAT:- The issue is also to be looked into afresh, which appears to be a procedural error. This issue is also, therefore, remanded to the file of the Adjudicating Authority. Denial of refund of an amount of Rs.1,41,073/-, which is on account of the difference between the amounts shown in the ST-3 returns and Form-A - HELD THAT:- It appears that the authorities below have not verified those documents before passing the orders. It is opined that even this issue requires re-adjudication. Hence, the denial of refund on this issue is set aside and the matter is remanded to the file of the Adjudicating Authority, before whom the appellant shall once again furnish all supporting documents for enabling the Adjudicating Authority to pass a speaking order. The appeal stands partly allowed and partly remanded. Issues:1. Denial of CENVAT Credit for certain input services used in providing output services.2. Rejection of refund claims related to specific services like Air Travel Agent Service, Car Parking Service, Hotel Service, Foreign Exchange Service, Rent-a-cab Service, Construction Service, and Event Management Service.3. Discrepancies in amounts shown in returns and invoices.4. Remand for fresh consideration on specific services like Hotel Services, Construction Service, Education Cess account, and differences in amounts shown in returns.Analysis:1. The appellant filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for unutilized CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on input services used in providing exported output services. The Adjudicating Authority partially sanctioned the refund but rejected the balance claim, citing ineligibility of CENVAT Credit for specific services. The First Appellate Authority upheld the rejection, leading to the current appeal.2. The Tribunal found that in previous cases involving the appellant, CENVAT Credit was allowed for various services like Cleaning Service, Air Travel Agent Services, Car Parking Service, among others. Hence, the rejection of refund for Air Travel Agent Service, Car Parking Service, Event Management Service, Rent-a-cab Service, and Foreign Exchange Service was deemed incorrect and directed to be allowed. However, the issue of Hotel Services was remanded for fresh consideration.3. Regarding Construction Service, the Tribunal noted the lack of supporting evidence and directed a reexamination by the Adjudicating Authority with a requirement for the appellant to provide relevant documents. Similarly, discrepancies in the Education Cess account and differences in amounts shown in returns were deemed procedural errors requiring re-adjudication with the submission of necessary supporting documents.4. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the denial of refund for specific services and remanded the issues related to Hotel Services, Construction Service, Education Cess account, and discrepancies in amounts shown in returns for fresh consideration. The appellant was instructed to provide all relevant documents to support their claims during the reexamination by the Adjudicating Authority.