2013 (4) TMI 167 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal against refund claim of credit availed prior to the registration Held that - Considering the fact that the decision relied in the case of Portal (India) Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd 2010 (7) TMI 92 CESTAT, BANGALORE has already been set aside by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and therefore, the issue in the matter is no longer res integra. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against refund claim allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) for service tax paid prior to registration with the Department.
- Interpretation of availability of Cenvat credit and refund claim eligibility before registration.
- Comparison of Tribunal decisions in different cases regarding refund claims prior to registration.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved a dispute over a refund claim allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for service tax paid by the respondents before their registration with the Department. The adjudicating authority initially rejected the refund claim, stating that the assessee was entitled to the refund claim of input service credit only for the period after registration. This rejection led to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a previous decision of the Tribunal in the case of Textech International (P) Ltd, which resulted in the refund claim being allowed. However, the Revenue was dissatisfied with this decision and filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

3. During the proceedings, the ld. DR for the Revenue referred to another Tribunal decision in the case of Portal (India) Wireless Solutions Pvt Ltd vs. CST, Bangalore, where it was held that Cenvat credit was not available before registration, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. On the other hand, the Ld. Consultant for the respondents argued that the decision in Portal (India) Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd had been set aside by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a different case, thus allowing the refund claim.

4. After hearing both sides, the Appellate Tribunal, represented by Ashok Jindal, noted that the decision relied upon by the ld. DR had been set aside by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. Therefore, the issue at hand was no longer res integra, leading to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the refund claim for the service tax paid before registration.

5. The judgment highlights the significance of legal precedents and the impact of higher court decisions on Tribunal rulings, emphasizing the need for a thorough understanding of the legal framework governing refund claims and Cenvat credit eligibility in the context of registration with the Department.