9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 50 - AT - Service TaxStay application - Refund of Cenavt - Assessee 100% Export Oriented Unit - Service Tax Registration Certificate not submitted - Held That - Registration not compulsory for refund - Export of software not a taxable service still refund cannot be denied - Assessee to produce the invoice, bills, receipts to substantiate their claim - Following decision of Portal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Stay on refund denied.
Issues:
Application for stay of operation of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the rejection of a refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Analysis: The Revenue filed an application for a stay of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the rejection of a refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, amounting to Rs. 32,15,989. The Ld. AR representing the Revenue argued that the original authority rejected the refund claim on the grounds that input services were received before registration. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim based on a Tribunal decision in a specific case. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant referred to another Tribunal case and a decision by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court to support their stance. The Tribunal noted that on the same issue, the Tribunal had previously allowed the appeal of the assessee in a similar case. The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision, which clarified that there is no statutory provision mandating registration as a condition for claiming Cenvat credit. The Karnataka High Court's decision emphasized that the rejection of a refund claim based on the absence of registration was an error not supported by law. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to reject the Revenue's appeal based on the Karnataka judgment, thereby disposing of the stay petition and the appeal accordingly. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's application for a stay of the impugned order, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the previous Tribunal rulings on the issue. The Tribunal found no justification for granting the stay and consequently dismissed the Revenue's application. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
|
