2017 (7) TMI 1458 - HC - Central Excise

Refund claim and CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground that the services used in unregistered premises - HELD THAT - This Court held that the aforesaid question has come up for consideration in Commissioner Service Tax Commissionerate Vs. M/s Atrenta India Private 2017 (4) TMI 563 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT wherein this Court was of the view that the refund could not be denied to the assessee merely on the basis of non-registration of the premises - It was held that even otherwise Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 does not contain a condition precedent that input services have to be received at a registered premises of the output service provider only. The aforesaid question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department - Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against CESTAT order allowing CENVAT Credit for services used in unregistered premises and refund thereof.

Analysis:
The High Court heard three appeals filed by the Central Excise against the CESTAT order dated 9th of June, 2016. The CESTAT had decided four appeals of the assessee, and these three appeals arose from the same judgment. The fourth appeal by the Revenue challenging the CESTAT order had already been dismissed by the Court on 22.02.2017. One of the key legal questions raised was whether CENVAT Credit for services used in unregistered premises and the subsequent refund could be allowed. This issue had been addressed in a previous case, Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate Vs. M/s Atrenta India Private, where it was held that denying refund based on non-registration of premises was not justified. The Court also noted that Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 did not mandate that input services must be received at a registered premises of the output service provider. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Department, citing the precedent set by previous decisions.

The counsel for the Department raised additional grounds, but the Court found them untenable as the CESTAT had already addressed and finalized those aspects based on its earlier decisions. Given that one of the appeals arising from the common order had been dismissed previously, the Court found no merit in the current appeals and subsequently dismissed them as well.