2016 (3) TMI 353 - HC - Service Tax

Refund of cenvat credit without obtaining registration - tribunal allowed the refund - Held that - if the Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in case of M/s. mPortal India Wireless Solutions Private Limited 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , it cannot be said that any substantial question of law would arise for consideration. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that there was any liability on the part of the respondent-assessee to pay service tax which was required to be paid and which was required to be adjusted against cenvat credit or that the respondent-assessee was not entitled to the refund. The learned Counsel has not been able to show any provision even under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, which provides for condition precedent for registration of the service provider. - Refund cannot be denied - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Rule 3 and 4 of Service Tax Rules 1994 - Mandatory or Procedural Nature for Availing Cenvat Credit and Refund without Registration.

Analysis:
The appellant-Revenue appealed on the issue of whether Rule 3 and 4 of the Service Tax Rules 1994 are mandatory or procedural in nature, allowing service providers to avail cenvat credit and refund of unutilized cenvat credit without registration. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a similar case, indicating agreement with the decision. The Tribunal further examined a statement provided by the appellant, detailing various services and their nexus to the export of services, ultimately finding in favor of the appellant's eligibility for a refund claim based on the established nexus.

The appellant-Revenue contended that the decision in the earlier case might necessitate reconsideration due to the alleged oversight of certain provisions, particularly Section 69 of the Registration of service provider. However, the Court reiterated the stance taken in the previous decision, emphasizing that the absence of a statutory provision mandating registration as a prerequisite for claiming cenvat credit renders the rejection of the refund claim unfounded. The Court dismissed the appellant's argument, stating that there was no liability on the respondent to pay service tax, as the service provided was exempt from service tax, and no provision under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules required registration of the service provider.

Ultimately, the Court upheld the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the previous case, emphasizing that no substantial questions of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the eligibility of the appellant for the refund claim without the requirement of registration for availing cenvat credit and refund of unutilized cenvat credit.