2017 (10) TMI 898 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT credit - non-registration of the appellant s premises - Rule 5 of CCR 2004 - Held that - reliance placed in the decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai-II Versus M/s. Hypertherm (India) Thermal Cutting Pvt. Ltd., M/s. BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (5) TMI 1463 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that refund could be granted to the assessee even if the premises in issue were not registered - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, rejection of part of refund claim, entitlement to Cenvat credit on car parking charges, credit accrual post-registration, applicability of judgments on credit accrual.

Analysis:
The appellants filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, seeking a sanctioned amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, permitting Cenvat credit on services pre-registration and car parking charges. However, the department appealed against allowing credit of a specific amount related to inputs received pre-registration.

During the hearing, the department argued that credit accrues post-registration, citing a High Court judgment. Conversely, the respondent's advocate referred to a Tribunal order in their favor, aligning with a High Court judgment in a similar case.

The Tribunal acknowledged the conflicting judgments but upheld the decision favoring the respondent. They highlighted the distinction between cases and the applicability of the High Court judgment on the issue. Following the precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, as no new circumstances were presented.

In conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the High Court judgment and previous Tribunal orders to dismiss the department's appeal. The decision emphasized the importance of consistent application of legal principles in similar cases.