2017 (3) TMI 1624 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Rule 5 of the CCR 2004 under N/N. 5/2006-C.E., dated 14-3-2006 - denial on the ground that the respondent is not entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the services namely Business Auxiliary Services, Catering Services, Courier Services, Tour & Travel Services, Banking Services, Business Support Service/Infrastructure Support Service and Insurance Services - Held that - As no SCN has been available on record, moreover, the adjudicating authority has discussed that the SCN has been issued but no SCN number has been mentioned. In that circumstances, the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the respondent holding that no such SCN has been issued to the respondent to deny Cenvat credit on the above services - Refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against refund claim denial under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Entitlement to avail Cenvat credit on various services - Dispute over show cause notice existence.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the denial of a refund claim by the respondent under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute arose from the respondent's claim for Cenvat credit on services like Business Auxiliary Services, Catering Services, Courier Services, Tour & Travel Services, Banking Services, Business Support Service/Infrastructure Support Service, and Insurance Services. The adjudicating authority allowed the refund claim but rejected it concerning the mentioned services based on Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (A) upheld the refund claim stating that since the inadmissible Cenvat credit was not disputed, the refund claim could not be denied. This decision led to the Revenue appealing the order.

During the proceedings, the Revenue argued that the show cause notice was issued to deny Cenvat credit on the aforementioned services, and thus, the Commissioner (A)'s order should be set aside. However, the respondent's Authorized Representative supported the impugned order. Upon hearing both sides, it was revealed that there was a discrepancy regarding the existence of the show cause notice. The jurisdictional commissionerate reported that no such notice was available on record. As the show cause notice was not produced, and the adjudicating authority did not provide specific details regarding the notice, the benefit of the doubt favored the respondent. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to the refund claim, finding no fault in the impugned orders, and subsequently dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the refund claim for the respondent, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and adherence to procedural requirements in disputes related to Cenvat credit claims on various services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.