2017 (12) TMI 1229 - HC - Central Excise

Refund claim - period prior to the registration of the respondent - Held that - The Court herein held that the refund would not be denied to the assessee merely on the basis of non-registration of the premises. This Court in the above decision also held that under the Rules it is not a condition precedent that input service has to be received at registered premises only of the out put service provider. Therefore, merely for the reason that the premises is not registered, that can not be a ground to deny the benefit of CENVAT Credit - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether service tax registration was required for refund under Notification No. 5/2006?
2. Whether CENVAT Credit of services used at unregistered premises and refund thereof was allowable?

Issue 1:
The main issue in this case was whether service tax registration was necessary for a refund under Notification No. 5/2006. The Court considered the question raised in the Central Excise appeal and referred to a previous judgment in a similar matter. The Court held that the refund cannot be denied solely based on non-registration of the premises. It was emphasized that the Rules do not mandate that input services must be received at registered premises of the output service provider. Therefore, the lack of registration of the premises should not be a reason to deny the CENVAT Credit benefit. The Court concluded that the question raised was answered in the negative, indicating that service tax registration was not a prerequisite for the refund under the mentioned Notification.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around the allowance of CENVAT Credit for services used at unregistered premises and the subsequent refund. The Court referred to a specific case where this matter was previously addressed. It was noted that the Court had dismissed an appeal in a similar context, affirming that the refund cannot be refused based on non-registration of premises. The Court reiterated that the location of registration does not impact the eligibility for CENVAT Credit. Consequently, the Court found that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, affirming that the refund should not be denied solely due to the absence of registration of the premises where services were utilized.

In summary, the judgment by the Allahabad High Court clarified that service tax registration was not a prerequisite for a refund under Notification No. 5/2006. Additionally, the Court emphasized that CENVAT Credit and subsequent refunds should not be denied based on the non-registration of premises where services were utilized. The decision provided clarity on these issues and set a precedent for similar cases in the future.