2017 (10) TMI 1332 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground of non-registration of premises - Held that - Reliance placed in the case of Scioinspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein the Hon ble High Court has held that there is no bar on availing the credit for the services provided prior to registration. Remand of matter - Held that - The original authority has disallowed the disputed input credit only on the grounds that it pertains to the period prior to date of registration and not on merits. This decision was not appealed against by the department to the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence they cannot make this as a ground for remand, before this forum, at this stage. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 rejected due to non-registration of premises.
2. Interpretation of the requirement of premises registration for availing unutilized cenvat credit refund.
3. Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing the refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim by M/s. Visual Graphics for the period April 2012 to June 2012 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority rejected a part of the claim amounting to &8377; 1,72,05,940/- citing non-registration of premises as the reason. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the appeal, leading to the department's appeal before the tribunal.

2. During the hearing, the respondent's advocate referred to judgments by the Madras High Court in similar cases, emphasizing that there is no bar on availing credit for services provided before registration. The appellant argued that premises registration is essential for refund of unutilized cenvat credit and requested a remand for a comprehensive review of all eligibility factors.

3. The tribunal examined the case laws cited and concluded that the issue was settled in favor of the appellant. It noted that the original authority's disallowance of input credit was solely based on the timing of services provided before registration, not on merit. As the department did not challenge this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), they could not raise it as a ground for remand at the tribunal stage. Following the Madras High Court's rulings, the tribunal dismissed the department's appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the core issues of the refund claim, premises registration requirement, and the tribunal's decision based on legal interpretations and precedents cited during the proceedings.