TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efinition of input services as given in Rule 2(l ) of CCR 2004, it is merely sufficient to establish that input services were used for providing output services. The first limb of the definition does not use the words directly and merely says inputs used for providing output services . The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant has not established that input services were directly used for providing output service is adding words into the definition of input service and therefore not acceptable. The appellant therefore is eligible for the refund of credit of input service prior to 1.4.2011. The finding of the adjudicating authority that the refund is not eligible for the reason that the input service did not have nexus with the output service is set aside. Denial of refund on the ground of difference in the amount of the cenvat credit disclosed in the ST-3 returns and the refund of credit filed by the appellant for the relevant period - HELD THAT:- On perusal of records, it is not forthcoming as to which of the services this difference in amount is spread over. For this reason, it is opined that the matter requires to be remanded. In case the appellant is able to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rns. For these reasons, these appeals also require to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsidering the issue of refund. In such consideration of the matter, the original authority is directed to verify the invoices as well as the services of the air travel agency service, photography services, as to whether these are used for personal consumption. If they are used for the activity of the company the appellant would be eligible for credit - appeals also stand allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. Appeals allowed by way of remand. - HON BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI. C. S. , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Ramani , N. V. S. , Consultant , for the Appellant Shri M. Selvakumar , Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ms. Sulekha Beevi. C. S As these appeals arise out of common impugned order, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Appeal Nos. ST/41464/2015 to ST/41469/2015 2. Brief facts are that the appellant is 100% EOU and registered with service tax department for providing Online Information and Data services, Business Support Service, Business Auxiliary Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the total credit in ST-3 returns which was subsequently rectified. After computing the amount of refund involved, they have shown the correct details in the revised claim. The original authority restricted the refund amount based on the ST-3 returns. The adjudicating authority ought to have considered the amounts mentioned in the revised claim and should not have rejected this higher amount as claimed by them. Some amount of refund has been rejected for the reason that premises was unregistered. It is submitted that this issue stands covered by various decisions. 6. Fourth ground of appeal is that the adjudicating authority though sanctioned part of the refund has not allowed interest for the delayed refund. There was much delay in sanctioning the refund and therefore the appellant ought to have given interest on the delayed refund as per the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Union of India - 2012 (27) S.T.R 193 (SC). The Ld. Consultant prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 7. Ld. A.R Shri M. Selvakumar appeared and argued for the Department. It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed in para 7.2 of the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irectly used for providing output service is adding words into the definition of input service and therefore not acceptable. The appellant therefore is eligible for the refund of credit of input service prior to 1.4.2011. The finding of the adjudicating authority that the refund is not eligible for the reason that the input service did not have nexus with the output service is set aside. 12. The second issue is that there is a difference in the amount of the cenvat credit disclosed in the ST-3 returns and the refund of credit filed by the appellant for the relevant period. It is submitted by the Ld. Consultant that the refund claim filed by them is higher than the amount of credit disclosed in the ST-3 returns, and that there is difference of more than Rs.5 lakhs. On perusal of records, it is not forthcoming as to which of the services this difference in amount is spread over. For this reason, we are of the opinion that the matter requires to be remanded. In case the appellant is able to furnish that they have availed these input services of higher amount, the original authority is directed to consider as per law and as per findings rendered in this order. 13. The original authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ancy Service, Commercial or Coaching Service, Event Management Service, Supply of Tangible Goods service, Service tax on out of pocket expenses, Security agency services, Pandhal Shamina Services. It is submitted that these services were availed for providing output services and therefore the refund could not have been rejected. 19. Ld. A.R Sri M. Selvakumar submitted that the services in the nature of out of pocket expenses, photography services do not have nexus with the output service provided by appellant and therefore cannot be allowed. 20. After considering the submissions made by both sides, we find that the services described in the table furnished by appellant do not fall under the exclusion clause of definition of input services (post-1.4.2011). The department therefore cannot reject the refund alleging that the services do not have nexus with output services. 21. For this period post-1.4.2011 also, there is difference in the amount of refund claim as well as the amount of credit disclosed in the ST-3 returns. For these reasons, these appeals also require to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsidering the issue of refund. In such consideration of the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
