2018 (1) TMI 1016 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - N/N. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18/06/2012 - denial on the ground of premises not registered - Held that - Hon ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of M Portal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , where it has been stated that registration of the premises is not necessary for grant of refund - the Hon ble Karnataka High Court decision is fully applicable to the disputed issue - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Denial of credit on input services.
3. Applicability of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Interpretation of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a refund claim filed by the respondents under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period April 2014 to June 2014. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim citing discrepancies in the location of input service invoices and the premises from which services were exported.

2. The party appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the denial of credit on input services. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the plea, allowing the refund of Cenvat Credit and also acknowledged the applicability of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding interest on delayed refund.

3. The Revenue filed the present appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Commissioner (Appeals) based their decision on the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court judgment in M Portal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, which stated that registration of premises is not necessary for a refund. The Revenue disputed this decision but had not appealed against it due to the lower amount involved.

4. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order, citing the applicability of the Karnataka High Court decision to the disputed issue. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondents.