9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1047 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - N/N. 5/2006-CE dated 14.3.2006 read with Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - export of services - denial on the ground that the assessee is not registered - Held that - the issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
Appeals against the order dated 27.11.2015 disposing of five appeals; Refund claims under Notification No.5/2006-CE; Rejection of refund claims due to non-fulfillment of conditions; Registration requirement for claiming refund; Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004; Judgment on the relevance of registration for claiming CENVAT credit; Appeal against the Commissioner (A) order; Applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. Analysis: The Revenue filed two appeals against the order dated 27.11.2015 where the Commissioner (A) disposed of five appeals, including the two filed by the Revenue. The issue in both appeals was common, leading to their disposal through a common order. The assessee, registered for Information Technology Software Services (ITSS), filed five refund claims under Notification No.5/2006-CE claiming CENVAT credit on service tax for input services used in exported services. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims citing non-registration during the claimed period. However, the Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal, stating that registration is not a prerequisite for claiming CENVAT credit based on the judgment in the case of M/s. mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner (A) directed the lower authority to consider the relevance of unutilized registered premises to the export activity. The Revenue appealed against this decision. The learned AR argued that registration is essential for claiming refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, citing Section 69 of the Finance Act. He referred to various rules to support the requirement of registration for claiming a refund and tried to distinguish the judgment in the case of mPortal Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal considered the arguments and the impugned order, noting the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the mPortal case. The Tribunal found that the issue was settled by the High Court, emphasizing that registration is not mandatory for claiming CENVAT credit. The High Court held that denial of refund based on non-registration is not justified if service tax payment on input services is proven. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A) order based on the High Court judgment, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. In conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the mPortal case to determine that registration is not a prerequisite for claiming CENVAT credit. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A) order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals as the denial of refund based on non-registration was deemed unjustified. The judgment established that service tax payment on input services is essential for claiming a refund, irrespective of registration status.
|
