CESTAT Bangalore: Refund claim denied for accumulated credit; Remanded for further determinationDenial of refund claim - refund of accumulated credit - Refund rejected on the ground that some of the services on which the refund claimed are common services and should have been distributed between the E.O.U. and STPI following the concept of ‘input service distributor - Held that:- credit cannot be denied on the ground that in respect of two units are located in the same premises, there is necessity to take input distributor registration and distribute the credit. - appellant should have tak... ... ... Issues: Refund claim rejection due to common services and nexus with export of goods.

In the judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, the refund claim of the appellant for accumulated credit from April 2012 to June 2012 was rejected because some services were considered common and should have been distributed between the E.O.U. and STPI as per the concept of 'input service distributor'. It was noted that services exclusively used by E.O.U. without nexus to export of goods cannot be refunded. The appellant argued that since STPI and E.O.U. were in the same premises but registered separately, there was no need for credit distribution. The Tribunal agreed, stating that credit denial based on units being in the same premises was unjustified.

Regarding the nexus issue, the Tribunal referred to a previous Interim Order in the case of M/s Apotex Research (P) Ltd. & Ors. The appellant requested a remand to the original authority to decide the nexus issue for each input service in line with the Interim Order and other relevant decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order requiring input distributor registration and remanded the matter to determine nexus based on their previous decision and additional relevant judgments to be presented. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court. Denial of refund claim - refund of accumulated credit - Refund rejected on the ground that some of the services on which the refund claimed are common services and should have been distributed between the E.O.U. and STPI following the concept of ‘input service distributor - Held that:- credit cannot be denied on the ground that in respect of two units are located in the same premises, there is necessity to take input distributor registration and distribute the credit. - appellant should have taken input distributor registration, is set aside and as regards nexus, the matter is remanded to decide in the light of our decision in the Interim Order (2015 (3) TMI 346 - CESTAT BANGALORE) as well as further decisions on the issue which may be placed before the original authority. - Decided in favour of assessee. M/s. Goodrich Aerospace Services Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I
Central Excise
2015 (5) TMI 489 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI
CESTAT BANGALORE - AT
Dated:- 21-11-2014
E/Stay/21838/2014, E/21650/2014-SM - -
Central Excise
B. S. V. Murthy,J. For the Appellant : Mr B G Chidanand, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr A K Nigam, AR ORDER Per: B S V Murthy: Refund claim filed by the appellant for refund of accumulated credit during the period from April 2012 to June 2012 has been rejected on the ground that some of the services on which the refund claimed are common services and should have been distributed between the E.O.U. and STPI following the concept of 'input service distributor'. It has been held that some of the services are exclusively used by E.O.U. did not have nexus with the export of manufactured goods and hence, refund cannot be allowed. 2. Learned counsel submitted that STPI and E.O.U. unit are located in the same premises since both are required to separately registered with different authorities, they have been rejected with separate authorities. Further, he also submitted that question of distribution of credit would arise only when a manufacturer has multiple units and Head Office is located separately. 3. I find that the credit cannot be denied on the ground that in respect of two units are located in the same premises, there is necessity to take input distributor registration and distribute the credit. 4. As regards the second issue of nexus, the issue was considered in the Interim Order No. 79 to 152/2014 dated 18.9.2014 in the case of M/s Apotex Research (P) Ltd. & Ors. - ST/00100/2008 ST/00563/2008 and he submitted that the matter may be remanded to the original authority for deciding the nexus issue in respect of each input service in accordance with the Interim Order as well as different decisions cited therein and relied upon. Accordingly, the impugned order, taking a view that the appellant should have taken input distributor registration, is set aside and as regards nexus, the matter is remanded to decide in the light of our decision in the Interim Order (supra) as well as further decisions on the issue which may be placed before the original authority. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders