2013 (6) TMI 389 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - Input services - prior to date of registration - export of services - The second ground taken for rejection of the refund claim is that refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is permissible only if the dutiable goods are exported under bond or LUT. - Held that - refund allowed. Decision in the cases of J.R. Herbal Care India Limited v. CCE, Noida - 2010 (3) TMI 391 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , CCE v. Drish Shoes Limited - 2010 (5) TMI 334 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT and Repro India Limited v. UOI 2007 (12) TMI 209 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT followed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of cenvat credit for service tax paid on input services utilized for export services prior to registration.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of refunding cenvat credit for service tax paid on input services utilized for export services before registration. The lower authorities rejected the refund claims solely based on the grounds that the claims were filed before registration, deeming them ineligible. However, the Tribunal's decision in the case of Well-known Polyester Limited specifically addressed this issue, stating that credit can be taken subsequently even for goods manufactured when the appellant was not registered, citing a similar case involving unregistered manufacturers availing credit on capital goods. This view is further supported by judicial forums' consistent stand on clandestine removals, allowing credit if proper documents showing duty payment are available.

Another ground for rejection was that refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is permissible only if dutiable goods are exported under bond or LUT. However, the Hon'ble High Courts of Himachal Pradesh and Bombay have held that refund of input credit is admissible even when exempted goods are exported without bond execution. Therefore, the conclusion that the appellant is not eligible for exemption due to goods not being exported under bond or LUT was deemed unsustainable.

Regarding interest on delayed refunds, the Chartered Accountant representing the appellant waived the interest claim, leading the judge to allow the refund applications without interest. The judgment directs the lower authorities to refund the amounts within sixty days from the receipt of the order, emphasizing that the appellant is not eligible for interest on these refund claims.

In conclusion, all appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside, with directions for refunding the amounts within the specified timeframe. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues surrounding the refund of cenvat credit for service tax paid on input services used for export services before registration, drawing on relevant legal precedents and considerations to arrive at a favorable decision for the appellant.