Order date – 3rd March 2023.

Parties: Deloitte Global Financial Advisory India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Service Tax -III

Facts – 

• The Appellant, Deloitte Global Financial Advisory India Pvt Ltd. claimed refund of between April 2016 and June 2016 under Rule 5 of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004. 
• The original authority disallowed the refund of some extent that carried in appeal, did not find favour with the Commissioner. The disputed services were found ineligible as it does not appear to have occurred to the lower authorities. The disputed services, on which credit of ₹ 15,06,787,  ₹ 58,573, ₹ 2118 and ₹ 875 was taken and found to be ineligible, are ‘management consultancy service’, ‘real estate agent service’, ‘garden maintenance’ and ‘club and association service’.

Issue –

• Whether the Respondent is liable to grant refund? 

Order –

• The Tribunal observed from perusal of rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, that it is seen that it is not the utilization of input/input service in exports that has prompted this attractive neutralization scheme but the restricted of duty or tax liability. The intent is to neutralize the taxes included, thereby, in the value of goods manufactured or service so that taxes are not exported too.
• Further, the Tribunal relied on its own decision in case of Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai v. Citicorp Services India Pvt Ltd wherein it was held that the correctness of availment of Cenvat Credit at the stage of filing of refund claim cannot be questioned, since the statute deals with the situation differently.
• Hence the appeal is allowed.