2016 (12) TMI 1674 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CESTAT, New Delhi was justified in law in allowing the refund of CENVAT Credit pertaining to the period prior to the registration of the respondent with the Department? - Held that - There is complete finding of fact that at the time of the application of refund of Cenvat Credit the respondent was a registered provider and, therefore, the claim was justified - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against tribunal's order allowing refund of Cenvat Credit prior to registration with the Department.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad pertains to an appeal filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a tribunal's order dated 18.6.2015. The primary question of law raised in this case was whether the tribunal was justified in allowing the refund of Cenvat Credit pertaining to a period before the respondent's registration with the Department. The court noted a crucial finding of fact that at the time of the refund application, the respondent was a registered provider, thereby justifying the claim for refund. The counsel for the department relied on a specific paragraph of a notification dated 14th March 2006, emphasizing the requirement of the registered premises of the service provider for exporting output services. However, upon a thorough examination of the refund application, it became evident that the essential condition was that the parties should be registered providers at the time of applying for the refund, which was satisfied in the present case.

The court concluded that the matter was primarily based on a finding of fact, and no substantial question of law arose in the case. Consequently, the appeal was deemed liable to be dismissed. The judgment succinctly stated that the appeal was indeed dismissed, thereby upholding the tribunal's decision regarding the refund of Cenvat Credit.