Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1190 - AT - Service TaxRefund of accumulated/unutilized Cenvat Credit of Service tax - input services - Business Travel Service - Membership of club or Association service - Event Management Service - Business Support Services - nexus with the output services or not - October, 2016 to June, 2017 - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that Rule 5 ibid provides for refund of accumulated Cenvat credit subject to compliance of the procedure/ guideline laid down in 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. But the question herein 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 settled legal position that denial of Cenvat credit can be done only by issuing notice under Rule 14 ibid and the department cannot reject refund of Cenvat credit solely under Rule 5. It is well settled principle that availment of Cenvat credit, its utilization and refund are different aspects dealt with under CCR, 2004 - Admittedly since the availment of credit has not been questioned by the department herein by issuing show cause notice in terms of Rule 14 ibid, the refund benefit cannot be denied on the ground of non-establishment of nexus between input and the output services. In the matter of M/S BNP PARIBAS INDIA SOLUTION PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST, MUMBAI EAST [2021 (12) TMI 676 - CESTAT MUMBAI] this Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee therein allowed the refund claim u/s. 5 ibid by holding that since the provisions of Rule 14 ibid have not been invoked, the refund of Cenvat credit as claimed by the Appellant under Rule 5 ibid cannot be denied. Although, as submitted by learned counsel, the mails and sample copy of invoices were produced by them before the learned commissioner in support of their submissions but simply the claim has been rejected by merely recording that no ‘tangible evidence’ has been produced. The aforesaid mails and invoices, which have been produced here also, are sufficient to establish the nexus. Law does not require one to one correlation unless the availment of Cenvat credit itself - the appellants are entitle for the refund as claimed by them and the authority below is not justified in rejecting the same. Appeal allowed.
|