2018 (4) TMI 1784 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - rejection on the ground that the premises of the respondents were not registered - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - The issue whether credit is eligible even though the premises is not registered was settled by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-III, CHENNAI VERSUS CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI M/S. SCIOINSPIRE CONSULTING SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD, CHENNAI 2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT as well as the decision in the case of m-Portal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on premises not being registered; eligibility of credit despite unregistered premises; disallowance of credit on specific services.

Refund Claim Rejection:
The respondents, providing Information Technology Software Service, filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority partially sanctioned the claim but rejected the balance due to the unregistered premises. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit and set aside the rejection, but upheld the disallowance of credit on specific services. The Tribunal is now reviewing the rejection of the refund claim based on unregistered premises.

Eligibility of Credit Despite Unregistered Premises:
The respondent argued that the issue of credit eligibility without a registered premises was settled by the jurisdictional High Court in a previous case. Referring to specific legal decisions, the respondent contended that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) aligns with established legal precedents. Consequently, the department's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.

Disallowance of Credit on Specific Services:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of credit on Outdoor catering service, Gardening service, Interior Decorators service, and Transportation charges. The Tribunal did not interfere with this aspect of the Commissioner's decision, as it was not challenged by the department in the appeal.

This judgment addresses the rejection of a refund claim due to unregistered premises, the eligibility of credit despite this issue, and the specific disallowance of credit on certain services. The legal analysis involves the interpretation of relevant rules, precedents set by previous court decisions, and the application of these principles to the specific circumstances of the case.