TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly Agency Service, Telecom Service, Management Maintenance or Repair Service, Facility Management Service etc from various service providers and has paid service tax on receipt of the said services. The appellant has also filed the prescribed ST-3 returns for the period October 2016 to June 2017. The appellant has accumulated the Cenvat Credit of Rs.3,00,68,912/- which could not be utilized by the appellant due to the fact that the appellant was 100% EOU. Thereafter, the appellant filed a refund claim of the said amount on 01.03.2018 in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ('CCR, 2004') read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012. After following the due process, the original authority vide Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2019 rejected the entire refund claim. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order, has rejected the refund claim as follows: (a) Refund claim of Rs.1,67,04,086/- against Work Contract Service was rejected on the ground that the same is not covered under the definition of 'input service' in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004; (b) Refund claim of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally included in the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service'. He further submits it is a settled legal position that substance of the transaction should be deliberated upon and not the nomenclature. In support of this submission, he relies on the following decisions: * Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal Agencies Private Limited - 2008 (12) STR 401 (SC) * Super Poly Fabriks Ltd vs. CCE - 2008 (10) STR 545 (SC) 4.1.3 The learned Counsel also submits that Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 was substituted vide Notification No. 18/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and the said substituted rule has prescribed the formula for claiming a refund of service tax by the service provider. He also submits that under the amended rule, there is no requirement of satisfying the nexus between the input services and the output services provided by the service provider. 4.2 As regards the rejection of refund claim of Rs.93,892/-, the learned Counsel submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the said refund claim against the invoices pertaining prior to the date of issuance of ST-2 certificate. The learned Counsel further submits that non-registration of the unit cannot be a basis for denial of refund ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record. 7. As the issue, regarding the rejection of refund claim of Rs.1,67,04,086/-, is concerned, we find that the said refund was rejected only on the ground that the impugned services availed by the appellant are not input services; whereas, perusal of the services availed by the appellant as mentioned in the scope of services, clearly proves that the services availed by the appellant are used in relation to modernization, renovation and repair of an existing leased office and therefore, these services fall within the definition of 'input service' as defied under Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004. 7.1 Further, we find that it is a settled law that one-to-one correlation is not required in law to claim a refund. While interpreting Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004, the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Cross Tab Marketing Service Pvt Ltd vs. CGST, Mumbai East - 2021-VIL-466-CESTAT-MUM-ST, has held that the amended R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as under: "19. We may also like to note that the general principles of interpretation of the exemption notification that it has to be construed strictly shall not really apply to the SEZ units which are otherwise exempted from the liability of the various duties under the main statute itself. The avowed object of providing such exemptions has to be the guiding principle for the applicability and the interpretation of the Notification to the SEZ units. 20. ---- 21. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the appellant fulfilled the criterias of eligibility to claim refund of the service tax paid on input services in terms of the Notification No 12/2013-ST. In fact it is not the case of the revenue that the appellant is not eligible to make such claims. Their only objection is to the claim being filed beyond the period of one year as per the notification. We are of the considered opinion that once the appellant is found to be eligible to claim the refund, the substantive conditions are complied with and the condition of time limit for making the claim under the notification being only a procedural requirement, needs to be construed liberally. Considering the beneficial object ....