July 2016
[2016-TIOL-1300-CESTAT-MUM] M/s Red Hat India P. Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner, Service Tax, Pune
fiogf49gjkf0d
Works Contract service is excluded from the definition of input service only when it is used for construction service. Further the department is liable to pay interest if there is delay in sanctioning refund beyond three months of filing of the claim.
Facts
The Appellant filed a refund claim of service tax charged on the works contract service for monthly maintenance of photocopier, computer and building premises availed by them under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The refund was denied on the ground that works contract service was excluded from the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore the present appeal is filed.
Held
The Tribunal noted that Works Contract Service is excluded only when it is used for construction service, whereas in the present case service was used for maintenance of office equipment and building therefore, this particular works contract service does not fall under the exclusion category and is eligible for refund under Rule 5. Further it was also held that irrespective of any circumstances whatsoever, if there is delay in granting refund beyond three months from the filing thereof, the department is duty bound to grant the interest for the delayed period in sanctioning the refund under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
