Service Tax
TRT-2025-
Cestat Chandigarh
Date:-13-09-23
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date – 13 September 2023
Parties: M/s Bechtel India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi
Facts –
- The Appellant, M/s Bechtel India Private Limited, is providing services under the category of consulting Engineer's Service. The appellant filed 12 refund claims for unutilized CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.3.2006.
- The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order partly sanctioned the refund and rejected the rest. The ground on which the refund was rejected are (i) input service invoices received at the premises not registered with the service tax authorities, (ii) input services have no nexus with output services, (iii) incomplete invoices and (iv) input services which are utilised for providing output service to foreign affiliates in relation to projects in India
Issue –
- Whether the appellant entitled to refund for unutilized CENVAT Credit?
Order –
- The Tribunal, regarding the rejection of refund on the ground that input service invoices received at the premises not registered with the service tax authorities, observed that the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai vs. CESTAT, Chennai wherein the Hon’ble High Court after considering the various rules and the notification No. 5/2006-CE NT dated 14.03.2006 has come to the conclusion that registration of the premises is not a pre-condition for grant of refund. Hence it was held that denial of refund on this ground is not justified.
- Regarding the rejection of refund on the ground that the input services have no nexus with output services, it was held that the cenvat credit on input services are in fact relating the business activity of the appellant and are covered by the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 and the appellant has rightly claimed the cenvat credit.
- The rejection of refund on the ground that the invoice was incomplete it was noticed that the supplier has issued a certificate admitting its mistake and certifying that the invoices were issued against provision of rent-a-cab service to the Appellant. Further with regard to other invoices issued by other vendors, the appellant’s name has been mentioned, and only address is not mentioned. Hence held that the rejection of refund on the ground of not filing the original invoices is not justified.
- With regard to input services which are utilised for providing output service to foreign affiliates in relation to projects in India it was found that the requirement of Rule 3(2) of the export of the services stood satisfied as the services were provided by the appellant from India and the recipient of the services are located outside India and were used by the foreign affiliates located outside India satisfying the condition of Rule 3(1)(iii) of export rules.
- Moreover, the Circular No. 111/05/2009- ST dated 24.02.2009 has clarified that the phrase ‘used outside India’ is to be interpreted to mean that the benefit of the service should accrue outside India. Therefore, the denial of refund on this ground is also bad in law.
- The Appeal is allowed.
Download Case Law
