2015 (11) TMI 679 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - CENVAT Credit - eligible input services - premises or the office was not registered earlier - Held that - In Very same issue in 2015 (11) TMI 678 - CESTAT BANGALORE & 2012 (7) TMI 601 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , this Tribunal has taken a view that credit is admissible even if the registration has not been taken. The decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka also supports the claim of the assessee. As regards the second issue, the definition of input service clearly provides that services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repair of a factory or premises of provider of output services are input services. Without premises, we cannot imagine provision of service. Therefore the credit of service tax paid on renting of immovable property would also be admissible. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Section 83 of Finance Act 1994; Admissibility of cenvat credit for unregistered premises; Eligibility of service tax paid on renting of premises as cenvat credit.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim which was partially sanctioned but later reviewed and rejected to the extent of &8377; 5,82,212 by the Commissioner under Section 83 of Finance Act 1994. The appeal was made challenging this decision. The appellant's CA argued that previous Tribunal decisions supported the admissibility of credit even for unregistered premises, citing a specific case law. Additionally, the CA contended that service tax paid on renting premises should be eligible as cenvat credit. The Tribunal noted that previous decisions and the High Court supported the appellant's position. It was emphasized that services related to setting up or maintaining premises are considered input services, making the credit for service tax on renting of immovable property admissible. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting relief to the appellant.