TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 865
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nput invoices was required to be submitted in terms of provisions of Rule 4(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. b) All the documents submitted along with refund claim is required to be self-certified. c) As per ST-2 Certificate, It was observed that assessee has obtained Service Tax registration on 01.04.2016. Hence, the refund claim which is prior to date of registration is liable to be rejected. d) The input invoices which are Issued in the name other than M/s. Siemens Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. are not eligible for input credit. e) Some of the address i.e. Prestige Premises, invoices for testing and design training, Cochin which is not a registered premises. Hence Cenvat Credit is not admissible on the invoices. f) Assessee has also claimed input credit on Insurance Premium (Policy issued by Bajaj Allianz). The copy of policy may be submitted for verification. Further, it is stated on Invoices that the subject policy pertains to "Parents" of the employee. Hence the same is not admissible. g) The invoices pertaining to M/s. Club Cabana, which was pertaining to membership and package for the employees is not admissible being a welfare expenses." 2.3 After considering th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... International Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (3) TMI 544- Madras HC] Great India Steel Fabricators [2020 (12) TMI 415- CESTAT Chandigarh] Rakon India Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (6) TMI 749 CESTAT Bangalore] Reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on Section 142(3) is not called for. This is a case under Section 142(6)(a) and not 142(3) of the CGST Act. 3.3 Learned AR reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 For holding against the appellant, Commissioner (Appeals) has in the impugned order observed as follows:- "6.7 From the above amendment, it is made clear by the legislation that the application for refund quarter wise is to be filed in case of service provider before the expiry of one year from the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange where the provision of service had been completed prior to receipt of such payment and it is date of issue of invoice where there is receipt of advance payment. Thus, it is clear that in situation where payment is received after raising of the invoice, co is the case here, the relevant date for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liable to be set aside. The Appellant shave proffered their disagreement with the various allegations made by the department and have relied upon various rulings and Board's Circulars. 6.14 In view of above legal provisions and clarification, I would now discuss the nature of input services used for providing output services by the appellants on which refund has been rejected on various grounds and record my findings on the eligibility to credit of the disputed input services involved in the appeal as under- 6.14.1 Office address not appearing in ST-2-Service Tax Involved Rs. 937,532/- : The adjudicating authority had denied the Cenvat credit on the grounds that the rent is paid for prestige premises which is not registered premises as per ST-2. The appellants have contended that Sr. No. 84 of Keonics Electronics City is assigned to Prestige tower wherein office of the appellant is located and from where the output services are being provided by the appellant; that while making the application under ST-1 the appellant had included the said premises located at 84, Keonics Electronics City, Hosur Road, Bangalore - 560 100. The appellants have also submitted copy of occu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(cited supra), the First Appellate Authority pointed out that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained before the original authority or substantiated before the First Appellate Authority that they are entitled to the claim for Cenvat credit. This finding of the fact recorded by the First Appellate Authority has not been set at naught by the Tribunal rather no reasons have been given by the Tribunal for permitting the credit to be availed by the assessee." 6.14.4 Therefore I am of the opinion that the appellants are not eligible for the said refund. Accordingly I do not allow the refund to the extent of Rs. 937,532/-on this input service and I do not find infirmity in the decision of the Adjudicating authority. The impugned order is thus upheld to this extent 6.15.1 Mediclaim policy for parents of employee- Rs. 17,51,430/- Group accident policy- Rs. 270,575/-:The appellants have contended that the insurance premium pertaining to parents of the employee is paid by them to insurance company named Bajaj Allianz General Insurance and is recovered by company from their employees and that eligibility of such credit was also clarified under Para 9 of the said draft Circular date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lth insurance since these services have been specifically excluded from the definition of 'input service. Further, in terms of Rule 2(1)(C) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; credit of service tax paid on life insurance, health insurance etc. is not allowed when these services are used primarily for personal use of any employees. The group insurance taken by the assessee is only in favour of their employees, even though the claim is filed by them and the claim is settled on them, the final beneficiary are the workers only. Hence, it appears that they cannot take credit of service tax paid on insurance in respect of their employees in terms of the above previsions. 6.15.3 Respectfully following the above decision, I do not intend to interfere with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in respect of these services. Accordingly, I do not allow the refundof credit to the extent of Rs. 20,22,005/-, on these two input services and I do not find infirmity in the decision of the Adjudicating authority. The impugned order is thus upheld to this extent. 6.16.1 Club services Rs. 3,931/-:The appellant has not contested this amount as the expenses pertain to personal consumption of em....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r refund of accumulated Cenvat credit subject to compliance of the procedure/guideline laid down under the notifications issued thereunder. The refund of Cenvat credit on the services in issue was mainly denied to the Appellant on the ground of 'no nexus' between the input services and the export services. The issue which falls for consideration in these Appeals is whether the department can deny refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 ibid alleging that there was no nexus between the output and input services. It is well settled legal position that denial of Cenvat credit can be done only by issuing notice under Rule 14 ibid. Having allowed the Cenvat credit or by not denying the same, the department cannot reject refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5. It is well settled principle that availment of Cenvat credit, its utilisation and refund are different aspects dealt with under CCR, 2004. Rule 5 provides for any refund of Cenvat credit and nowhere in this Rule there is a provision to determine the correctness about the availment of Cenvat credit. Its only Rule 14 ibid which provides for recovery of irregularly availed Cenvat credit. I find force in the submission of Learned Counsel th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... establishing the fact that the refund benefit should be granted to it. So far as establishing the nexus between input and the output service is concerned, I find that this Tribunal in the case of Accelya Kale Solutions Ltd. (supra) by relying upon the letter dated 16-3- 2012 of TRU has held that under Rule 5 ibid, refund of input service credit is permissible on compliance of the formula prescribed therein and not otherwise. The relevant paragraphs in the said order are extracted hereinbelow : 3. Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was substituted vide Notification No. 18/2012-C.E. (N.T.), dated 17-3-2012, with effect from Appeal Nos. ST/88190, 88215, 88216 & 88217/2018, 1-4-2012. The said substituted rule has prescribed the formula for claiming refund of service tax by the service provider. Under such amended rule in vogue, there is no requirement of satisfying the nexus between the input services and the output service provided by the service provider. Consequent upon substitution of the said Rule in the Union Budget-2012, the Tax Research Unit (TRU) of CBEC vide letter dated 16-3-2012 has clarified as under :- "F.1 Simplified scheme for refunds : 1. A simplified schem....