Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1196 - AT - Service TaxEligibility of refund claim of Cenvat credit - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 - Huge accumulated Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the input services - Early drug discovery services taxable under category of Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service exported to its overseas clients - Received various input services and avails Cenvat credit of Service tax paid on such input services - Services has no nexus with the output services. Held that:- the business activities in the case of a service provider are not only confined to mere proving the service directly, but also include other activities, which he may be required for accomplishing the purpose of business. For smooth functioning of the business of providing the service and other like activities, the service provider may use other services, which are ancillary and incidental for accomplishing the main purpose. In such an eventuality, it cannot be said that the function of those ancillary services are not connected to the business purpose of the assessee. Therefore, in view of the definition of input service and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, any service received and which is commercially required for the purpose of carrying on the business of the service provider, will be covered by the expression 'activity relating to business' contained in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The nature, purpose and use of the disputed services by JBL establish the fact that the expenditure incurred for those purported disputed services are commercially required to be incurred with a view to facilitate the carrying on the business of providing the taxable service, and thus, confirming to the expression 'activities relating to business' as contained in the definition clause of 'input service'; as the word 'business' is one of wide import and in fiscal statutes, it must be construed in a broad rather than a restricted sense. Therefore, denial of refund benefit to JBL under Rule 5 ibid by the authorities below is not justified. I am also of the considered view that there are no merits in the appeals filed by the Revenue, because of the fact that the nexus between the input services and the output service exported by the appellant is duly established by JBL for claiming of refund of accumulated Cenvat credit. whether refund application was filed within the prescribed time limit - Held that:- at this juncture, it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to ascertain the dates, when the refund applications were filed by JBL for the purpose of computation of the limitation. Therefore, the matter should be remanded back to original authority for ascertainment of fact regarding the date of filing of the refund applications and if the applications were filed within the stipulated time limit, then to decide the matter in line with the observations recorded above. - Appeals disposed of
|