fiogf49gjkf0d
Rebate of CENVAT credit on exported services — No dispute as regards the services on which rebate claimed were ‘input services’ in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR — Deficiency in declaration — A technical lapse — Genuine claim not deniable — Provisions of unjust enrichment not applicable to rebate claim.
Facts:
The appellant filed a declaration for claiming rebate on export of service with the Jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise within the limitation period. The appellant mentioned some input services specifically and other input services were described as ‘other services’ instead of mentioning each input service separately. No allegations were made that either services not specifically declared had not been received or invoices for all input services had not been submitted. This declaration was accepted. The Commissioner reviewing this order concluded that the declaration filed was incorrect on the grounds that the appellant did not mention all the services but mentioned some input services along with the words ‘other services’. The appellant produced a statement showing the correlation between export invoices and Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) but did not mention the invoice numbers of the export invoices and hence it was not possible to establish that FIRCs pertained to export services. The appellant claimed a rebate for services of Advertisement, Chartered Accountant and Management Consultant Services. The Department did not dispute that the same were covered by the definition of ‘input service’ but they contended that these services were not used for providing the Customer Care Services which were exported. The Commissioner rejected the rebate claim and ordered the same to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner alleged that there was willful misstatement and suppression of facts by the assessee. The assessee had submitted rebate claims with all relevant documents to the jurisdictional authority, which sanctioned rebate after being satisfied about its correctness. This sanction did not discover any new document indicating misstatement or suppression of any information.
Held:
Even if certain services were not mentioned in the declaration, it was considered only a technical lapse, for which rebate could not be denied. Since only some input services were not mentioned, it was highly irrational to deny the entire rebate claim. Further, simply because FIRCs did not bear the export invoice numbers, it could not be concluded that the same did not pertain to the service provided by the appellant to their client abroad. It was held that whenever credit was permitted to be taken, the same were permitted to be utilised and when the same is not possible, there is provision for grant of rebate. Hence the Department could not object that these services were not used for providing services exported by the assessee. It was held that the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable to rebate claims and the rejected refunds/rebates could not be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. It was held that penalty could be imposed only if there was evidence of collusion with jurisdictional authorities sanctioning the inadmissible rebate.
