2017 (4) TMI 1234 - HC - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT credit - registrations not done - Held that - the issue is covered by the decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai & M/s. SCIOinspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai 2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules does not stipulate registration of premises as a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of CESTAT decision on refund of CENVAT credit without registration
- Consideration of safeguards and limitations in Notification No. 05/2006-CE(NT)
- Application of Karnataka High Court judgment on low revenue effect
- Sustainability of CESTAT's final order in light of Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court

Interpretation of CESTAT Decision:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether the decision of the CESTAT allowing refund of CENVAT credit without registration is correct. The questions of law framed for consideration include the correctness of the CESTAT's decision in this regard. The Court, based on the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, answers the questions of law in favor of the first respondent and against the Appellant/Revenue. Consequently, the captioned appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Consideration of Safeguards and Limitations:
Another issue raised in the judgment pertains to whether the CESTAT was correct in not considering the safeguards, conditions, and limitations stipulated in the Appendix to Notification No. 05/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006. While this issue was not explicitly discussed in the detailed analysis provided in the judgment, the overall decision of the Court to dismiss the appeal indicates that the Court may have found the CESTAT's approach acceptable in this regard.

Application of Karnataka High Court Judgment:
The judgment also delves into whether the CESTAT was correct in applying the ratio of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in a specific case. The Court appears to have considered this aspect in its analysis, leading to the ultimate decision to answer the questions of law in favor of the first respondent and against the Appellant/Revenue. This indicates that the Court may have found the application of the Karnataka High Court judgment by the CESTAT to be appropriate in the context of the case at hand.

Sustainability of CESTAT's Final Order:
Lastly, the judgment evaluates whether the CESTAT's final order can be sustained in light of a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in a specific case. While the specifics of this evaluation are not explicitly discussed in the judgment, the overall outcome of dismissing the appeal suggests that the Court did not find grounds to sustain the CESTAT's final order in the context of the Division Bench judgment. This aspect contributes to the comprehensive analysis provided by the Court in addressing the various legal issues raised in the appeal.