EOU unit wins CENVAT credit refund appeal after revenue incorrectly denied export service refunds under Rule 5

CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal of a 100% EOU/STPI unit claiming CENVAT credit refund for export services and domestic services. The tribunal held that revenue authorities incorrectly denied refund by disallowing CENVAT credit for allegedly ineligible input services. The proper procedure would have been to confirm demand under Section 73 of Finance Act 1994 and adjust against available refund amounts. The tribunal ruled that non-payment of service tax liability cannot justify denial of CENVAT credit refund under Rule 5, as these operate in separate spheres. Following the larger bench decision in Span Infotech case, time limitation for quarterly refund claims begins from quarter-end when FIRC is received. Since the demand was unsustainable, associated penalty was also set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of refund claims u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on ineligible input services.
3. Imposition of penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. Applicability of SEZ provisions to STPI units.
5. Limitation period for filing refund claims.

Summary:

1. Rejection of Refund Claims u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The appellant, a 100% EOU under STPI Scheme, filed four refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for refund of cenvat credit taken on inputs/input services used for export of services. The adjudicating authority rejected these claims, stating that if the appellant had discharged his service tax liability properly, there would not have been any accumulated cenvat credit for claiming refund. The impugned order upheld this decision, rejecting the refund claims.

2. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on Ineligible Input Services:
The adjudicating authority disallowed the Cenvat Credit claimed by the appellant on ineligible input services and ordered the recovery of the said amount u/s 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, along with the due amount of interest. The impugned order upheld this decision, stating that the appellant had misused the provisions of the SEZ/STPI scheme with the intent to evade payment of service tax.

3. Imposition of Penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994:
A penalty equal to the disallowed Cenvat Credit amount was imposed on the appellant u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, for willful violation and misuse of the provisions of the SEZ/STPI scheme. The impugned order upheld this penalty, finding no merit in the appellant's appeal.

4. Applicability of SEZ Provisions to STPI Units:
The impugned order referenced Rule 19(7) of the SEZ Rules, 2006, which mandates that a company operating both under DTA and SEZ/STPI shall have two distinct identities with separate books of account. It was held that the appellant's STPI unit and DTA units are distinct entities, and service tax is leviable on service consideration realized from the DTA units in the name of salary and other allowances.

5. Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims:
The impugned order's stance on the limitation period for filing refund claims was found to be inconsistent with the decision of the larger bench in the case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt Ltd. and the Karnataka High Court in Suretex Prophylactics India Pvt. Ltd., which held that the relevant date for the purposes of deciding the time limit for refund claims should be the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside on all counts, including the rejection of refund claims, disallowance of Cenvat Credit, and imposition of penalties. The adjudicating authority's approach was found to be alien to the legal provisions outlined by the Finance Act, 1994, and the rules made thereunder.

---