2024 (1) TMI 38 - AT - Service Tax

Exporter Wins Appeal, Secures Refund After Address and Invoice Discrepancies Resolved; Court Validates Cenvat Credit Claims.

M/s Pricewaterhousecoppers Service Delivery Centre (Kolkata) Versus Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Kolkata North

The appeals were resolved in favor of the appellant, an exporter of services, who was initially denied a refund of Rs. 74,18,425/- due to discrepancies in ... Refund of un-utilized cenvat credit - part claim denied for various reasons. Credit denied on the ground that the input services for which the refund is filed are not input services in terms of Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- It is found that at the time of availing cenvat credit, it was not objected for availment of cenvat credit. Therefore, at the time of filing of refund claim, the cenvat credit issued cannot be raised. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for refund claim. Credit denied due to discrepancies holding by the adjudicating authority that the address of the appellant is not proper - HELD THAT:- As the registration is matching with the invoices issued by the supplier. In that circumstances, it cannot be alleged that the address of the service provider of the service recipient is not correct, the said discrepancy can be rectified. On this ground, the refund claim cannot be rejected. Credit denied on the ground that that no building number was mentioned in the invoices issued by the supplier of service - HELD THAT:- There is registration number of service provider and service recipient on the invoice, in that circumstances, the cenvat credit cannot be denied. Consequently, the appellant is entitled for refund claim. Credit denied on the ground that the invoices are in name of the employees along with the appellant - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the appellant’s name has been mentioned in the invoices issued by the service provider. In that circumstances, the appellant qualifies for entitlement of cenvat credit. Consequently, the appellant is entitled for refund claim for an amount of Rs.10,07,201/-. Denial of credit - Insurance Policy issued post the claim period, payment was made within claim period - HELD THAT:- The appellant has paid service tax within claim period, in that circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellant is not entitled to take cenvat credit. Consequently, the appellant is entitled for refund claim for an amount of Rs.18,30,077/-. Appeal disposed off. Issues involved: The issue in all the appeals is common. Therefore, all are disposed off by a common order. Summary: The appellant, an exporter of services, availed cenvat credit on certain input services during the export activity. The refund claim filed by the appellant was partially denied due to discrepancies in address, invoices, alleged duplication of cenvat credit, and the nature of services claimed as input services. The total refund denied amounted to Rs. 74,18,425/-. Upon hearing both parties and reviewing the submissions and records, it was found that discrepancies in address and invoices did not warrant denial of refund claim. The registration matching with supplier invoices indicated correctness, allowing for rectification of discrepancies. Thus, the appellant was entitled to a refund of Rs. 27,65,489/-. Another disallowed cenvat credit of Rs. 11,43,368/- due to the absence of building number in supplier invoices was overturned. The presence of registration numbers of service provider and recipient validated the credit claim, leading to the appellant being entitled to this amount. Furthermore, cenvat credit initially denied for invoices in the name of employees along with the appellant was allowed. The mention of the appellant's name in the invoices by the service provider established eligibility for cenvat credit, resulting in a refund of Rs. 10,07,201/-. Regarding an insurance policy issued post the claim period but with payment made within the claim period, it was held that the appellant was entitled to take cenvat credit. As a result, a refund claim of Rs. 18,30,077/- was granted. The appellant chose not to press for the remaining claim, leading to a total refund of Rs. 67,46,131/-. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of in favor of the appellant.