9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 11 - AT - Service TaxRefund of accumulated Cenvat Credit which could not be utilized by the appellant due to the fact that the appellant was 100% EOU - rejection on the ground that the appellant had not provided any output service during that period - rejection on the ground that as the appellant s unit is located in SEZ and therefore the appellant should have filed the refund claim in terms of N/N. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 and not in terms of Rule 5 of the CCR 2004 read with N/N. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012. Refund rejected only on the ground that the impugned services availed by the appellant are not input services - HELD THAT - 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. 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 (9) TMI 979 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held that the amended Rule 5 does not require establishment of any nexus between input and export services. The rule only provides that the admissible refund will be proportional to the ratio of export turnover of goods and services to the total turnover during the period under consideration and the net Cenvat Credit taken during that period. Indisputably in the refund proceedings under Rule 5 as amended any such attempt to deny or to vary the credit availed during the period under consideration is not permissible. The amended provisions of Rule 5 of CCR 2004 have also been clarified by the Tax Research Unit of the Department of Revenue vide Circular dated 17.03.2012 wherein it has been stated that the nexus between the input service used in export of service should not be insisted upon and the benefit of refund should be granted on the basis of the ratio of export turnover to total turnover demonstrated by the assessee. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of non-registration of the unit - HELD THAT - The refund cannot be denied only on the basis of non-registration of the unit as held by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CST Noida vs. Atrenta India Pvt Ltd 2017 (4) TMI 563 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . Rejection on the ground that the claim had not been filed as per N/N. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 but filed as per N/N. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012 - HELD THAT - It was a procedural lapse on the part of the assesse and it has been consistently held by various Courts that substantive benefit cannot be denied on technical reasons/procedural lapse. Conclusion - i) 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 defined under Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004. ii) Refund cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-registration of the unit when service tax has been paid on input services. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were: (a) Whether the refund claim of Rs.1,67,04,086/- against services described as 'Work Contract Service' or 'Construction Works - Fitout' qualifies as input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004), thereby entitling the appellant to refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit paid on such services. (b) Whether the refund claim of Rs.93,892/- pertaining to invoices issued prior to the issuance of the ST-2 certificate (i.e., prior to registration) can be denied on the ground of non-registration of the appellant's unit during that period. (c) Whether the entire refund claim of Rs.2,92,85,930/- can be rejected on the ground that the appellant's unit is located in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and therefore the refund claim should have been filed under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 applicable to SEZ units, rather than under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012 applicable to regular assessees. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS (a) Refund claim of Rs.1,67,04,086/- on 'Work Contract Service' / Construction Works The relevant legal framework included Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 which defines 'input service' and Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 which prescribes the procedure and conditions for claiming refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit. Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012 also governs refund claims by service providers. The appellant had paid service tax on input services such as Renting of Immovable Property Service, Manpower Recruitment, Telecom Service, Management Maintenance or Repair Service, Facility Management Service, including services described as 'Construction Works - Fitout' for modernization and renovation of leased office premises. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim on the ground that the said services did not qualify as input services because there was no existing structure, and thus the services could not be classified as modernization, renovation or repair. The rejection was based solely on the invoice description and the absence of an existing structure. The appellant contended that the substance of the transaction should prevail over the nomenclature, submitting that the office was leased and the services were for modernization and renovation, which fall within the inclusive definition of input service under Rule 2(l). The appellant relied on Supreme Court precedents establishing that the substance of the transaction governs classification rather than mere description. The Tribunal examined the scope of services availed and found that they were indeed related to modernization, renovation, and repair of an existing leased office. It held that such services fall squarely within the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. Further, the Tribunal relied on the amended Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 (substituted by Notification No. 18/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012) which does not require establishing a nexus between input services and output services for claiming refund. The Tribunal referred to a precedent from the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal which held that the refund admissible is proportional to the ratio of export turnover to total turnover and the net Cenvat Credit taken, without requiring a one-to-one correlation or nexus. The Tribunal also noted that denial of refund on the ground of lack of nexus or classification of input services should be done only through recovery proceedings under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004, which was not initiated in this case. Therefore, the refund claim could not be denied on the basis of classification or nexus. The Tribunal further referred to the Circular dated 17.03.2012 issued by the Department's Tax Research Unit clarifying that nexus between input services and export services should not be insisted upon for refund under Rule 5. (b) Refund claim of Rs.93,892/- pertaining to invoices prior to ST-2 certificate issuance The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this refund claim on the ground that the appellant had not provided any output service during the period prior to issuance of the ST-2 certificate (i.e., prior to registration). The appellant argued that non-registration cannot be a ground for denial of refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, as there is no such condition in the relevant notification. The appellant had paid service tax on the input services received and was therefore entitled to refund. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, relying on judicial precedents including decisions of the Karnataka and Allahabad High Courts which held that refund cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-registration when the service tax has been paid on input services. (c) Rejection of entire refund claim of Rs.2,92,85,930/- on ground of wrong refund procedure applicable to SEZ unit The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the entire refund claim on the ground that the appellant's unit was located in an SEZ and therefore the refund claim should have been filed under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013, which is specific to SEZ units, rather than under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012 applicable to regular assessees. The appellant contended that the SEZ provisions are optional and provide special facilities, but do not mandate that refund claims must be filed only under SEZ-specific notifications. The appellant bona fide believed that as a regular assessee it was entitled to file refund claims under the regular provisions. The appellant submitted that procedural lapses should not result in denial of substantive benefits. The Tribunal referred to consistent judicial precedents holding that substantive benefits cannot be denied on technical or procedural grounds. It cited a recent decision of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal which emphasized that exemption and refund provisions for SEZ units are intended to be beneficial and must be liberally construed to promote economic growth and encourage SEZ activities. The Tribunal quoted the decision which held that "the beneficial purpose of the exemption must be given full effect" and that procedural lapses "cannot be the basis to deny the refund" when substantive eligibility is established. The Tribunal noted that the appellant fulfilled all substantive criteria for refund and that the procedural lapse of filing under the wrong notification was not a ground to deny the refund. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "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 defined under Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004." "It is a settled law that one-to-one correlation is not required in law to claim a refund. The amended Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 does not require establishment of any nexus between input and export services. The admissible refund will be proportional to the ratio of export turnover of goods and services to the total turnover, during the period under consideration and the net Cenvat Credit taken during that period." "In the absence of any notice for recovery as provided under Rule 14, the refund claimed by the assessee under Rule 5 cannot be denied on the ground of classification or nexus." "Refund cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-registration of the unit when service tax has been paid on input services." "Substantive benefit of refund cannot be denied on technical or procedural grounds such as filing refund claims under a wrong notification, especially when the appellant is otherwise eligible. The provisions applicable to SEZ units are intended to be beneficial and must be liberally construed to promote economic growth." "The beneficial purpose of the exemption must be given full effect to and before interpreting a statute, 'we must first ask ourselves what is the object sought to be achieved by the provision and construe the statute in accordance with such object'. In the event of any ambiguity, such ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the exempted." Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appellant's appeal with consequential relief as per law.
|
