Refunds Approved for Unutilized CENVAT Credit: Tribunal Grants Relief for Service Tax on Eligible Services.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant's appeals for refund claims of unutilized CENVAT credit. It granted refunds for service tax related to security service, inward transportation, and other disputed services, recognizing their eligibility under the pre-amendment definition of 'Input service.' The appellant is entitled to consequential relief as per law.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claims rejection, Service tax refund, Input service credit eligibility

Refund Claims Rejection:
The appeals were filed against the Order in Appeal rejecting refund claims for unutilized CENVAT credit. The appellant filed three refund claims which were rejected by the refund Sanctioning Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed refund of service tax related to security service and inward transportation but rejected refund for erection, telephone service, and outward transportation. The appellant challenged this decision by filing appeals.

Service Tax Refund:
The appellant's counsel argued that the refund claims for certain services were wrongly rejected. Specifically, for telephone service provided before the amendment of 01.04.2011, the counsel claimed it was eligible for refund. The counsel also cited legal precedents and circulars to support their argument. Regarding outward transportation, the counsel referenced a Supreme Court decision allowing input service credit up to the place of removal, which in the case of exports is the port. Additional judgments were cited to strengthen the argument.

Input Service Credit Eligibility:
The Tribunal noted that the disputed period was before the changes introduced by Notification No. 3/2011 dated 1.3.2011 to the definition of 'Input service.' Prior to this amendment, the definition had a broad scope, covering almost all services used for providing output services. Since there was no evidence to suggest that the services in question were not used for output services, and considering the minimal tax amount involved, the Tribunal decided to grant the refund benefits to the appellant without straining the statutory provisions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, with the appellant deemed eligible for any consequential relief as per the law.

---