2018 (2) TMI 1416 - HC - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - denial on the ground of Non-Registration of premises - Whether the decision of CESTAT in allowing refund of Cenvat credit even without registration is correct? Held that - Reliance placed in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund - there was no error, in the order of the tribunal, and accordingly answered the substantial questions of law, against the revenue. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the decision of CESTAT in allowing refund of CENVAT credit even without registration is correct.
2. Whether CESTAT erred in not considering the safeguards, conditions, and limitations as stipulated in the Appendix to Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2016.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund of CENVAT Credit Without Registration:
The primary issue revolves around whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was correct in allowing the refund of CENVAT credit to the respondent despite the premises not being registered at the time of export but registered subsequently. The adjudicating authority initially rejected the refund claims for certain amounts on the grounds of non-registration of premises and ineligible CENVAT credit on car parking charges. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the rejection, stating that registration is not mandatory to take credit and claim a refund, and allowed the refund for services received at unregistered premises that were later registered. The CESTAT upheld this decision, referencing the High Court's judgment in the case of M/s. Scionispire Consulting Services, which distinguished the facts from the Sutham Nylocots case and aligned with the Karnataka and Allahabad High Courts' rulings that refunds could be granted even if the premises were not registered.

2. Consideration of Safeguards, Conditions, and Limitations:
The second issue pertains to whether CESTAT failed to consider the safeguards, conditions, and limitations as stipulated in the Appendix to Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2016. The High Court examined a similar question in CMA No.860 of 2017, where it was argued that the notification only sets out the procedure for claiming refunds and does not prohibit granting CENVAT credit if the premises are not registered. The Court noted that the notification's clause correlates the jurisdiction of the concerned officer with the location of the registered premises but does not imply that unregistered premises are ineligible for refunds. The Court emphasized that Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, does not stipulate registration of premises as a prerequisite for claiming a refund.

Conclusion:
The High Court, referencing its decision in CMA No.860 of 2017 and other relevant case laws, concluded that the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were answered in the negative. The Court upheld the CESTAT's decision, affirming that the refund of CENVAT credit could be granted even if the premises were not registered at the time of export but were registered subsequently. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.