2017 (10) TMI 285 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of accumulated credit - denial on the ground that the credit was not available to the assessee inasmuch as, during the relevant period they were not registered with the service tax authorities - whether respondents were entitled to the refund of the Cenvat credit availed by them during non-registration period, in terms of Rule 5 of the CCR or not? - Held that - the issue stand settled by the latest decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-III Vs SCIO inspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (10) TMI 41 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that refund claim made by the assessee cannot be rejected on the ground that they were not registered with the concerned authorities during the period of dispute - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of accumulated credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules based on non-registration of premises.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order denying the refund claim due to non-registration of premises during the relevant period. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that non-registration cannot be a ground for denial of credit, citing various Tribunal decisions and a Karnataka High Court decision. The order rejecting the refund claim was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Revenue challenged the Commissioner's order, referring to a Madras High Court decision stating that registration of premises is necessary for credit availment. The issue to decide was whether the respondents were entitled to the refund of Cenvat credit during the non-registration period under Rule 5. The Tribunal noted the Madras High Court decision was in a different context, and the issue in the present case was the refund of accumulated credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, not related to Central Excise matters.

The Tribunal mentioned a recent Madras High Court decision distinguishing the earlier case referred to by the Revenue, holding that refund claims cannot be rejected based on non-registration during the dispute period. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) orders, and therefore rejected all four appeals filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that non-registration of premises during the claim period should not be a reason for rejecting refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the specific legal context of the case and the relevant precedents, ultimately affirming the entitlement of the respondents to the refund of accumulated credit despite non-registration during the disputed period.