Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cst, Delhi-Iv vs Ms. Ernst & Young Associates Llp on 27 July, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 SINGLE BENCH COURT NO.1 Appeal No. ST/60328/2017 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 170/ST/Appeal-II/MK/GGN/2016-17 dated 19.10.2016 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Gurgaon] Date of Hearing/Decision: 27.07.2017 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) CST, Delhi-IV Appellant Vs. Ms. Ernst & Young Associates LLP Respondent
________________________________________________ Appearance Shri. Satyapal, AR- for the appellant None- for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO: 61450/2017 Per Ashok Jindal:
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Ld. Commissioner (A) allowed the refund claim filed by the respondent under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 for the cenvat credit remained un-utilised in their cenvat credit account. The part of the refund claim was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority and the refund of Rs. 16,79,753/- was rejected on the ground that the services on which they have availed cenvat credit on Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) Services have no direct nexus with output service, therefore, the said refund claim was rejected. Aggrieved from the said order, the respondent filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (A) who sanctioned the refund claim. Against the order of sanctioning the refund claim, the Revenue is in appeal before me.
3. The ld. AR submits that Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) service availed by the respondent after providing output service therefore, the same has no nexus with the output services, therefore, the same is not input service for the respondent, therefore, they are not entitled to take cenvat credit thereon, therefore, they are not entitled to claim refund of the said services prior 01.04.2011. He further submits that period 01.04.2011, the activity related to business has been deleted from the statute.
4. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Considering the fact that the issue involved in the narrow compass 01.04.2011, therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal on merits.
5. Heard the ld. AR.
6. The issue before me is that whether availment of cenvat credit on Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) has been denied to the respondent or not?
7. The Revenue fairly agreed that no proceedings were initiated against the respondent for denial of cenvat credit on Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII), as no proceedings in this case for denial of cenvat credit initiated against the respondent, therefore, at the stage of filing refund claim of un-utilized cenvat credit in their cenvat credit account cannot be challenged. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Revenues appeal.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed by affirming the impugned order. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) rt 2 ST/60328/2017