2018 (6) TMI 382 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - denial on the ground that services have been utilized before the registration - invoices are drawn in the name of their marketing office at Mumbai - credit in respect of some services like rent-acab, personal insurance and catering services are not eligible to them - Held that - the impugned order to that extent it denies refund claim stating that the services has been utilized before the registration, is unsustainable - reliance placed in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , where it was held that registration is not necessary for refund - refund allowed. Denial of refund on the ground that invoices was drawn in the name of their marketing office in Mumbai - Held that - It is undisputed that that the output services are provided prior to the registration of the unit - the ratio of the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (9) TMI 590 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT will apply, where it was held that the refund could not be denied to the assessee merely on the basis of non-registration of the premises - refund allowed. As regard the CENVAT Credit on the third point, since the matter is not contested, refund is correctly denied. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Denial of refund of service tax paid on input services pre-registration, invoices drawn in the name of marketing office, eligibility of credit for certain services.

Analysis:
1. Pre-registration service tax refund denial: The appellant claimed a refund of service tax paid on services utilized before registration. The appellant cited precedents from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Tribunal's decisions in support of their claim. The Tribunal found that the appellant had rendered output services after registration, even though the refund was claimed on services received before registration. Citing the Karnataka High Court's judgment and other Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal held that the denial of refund based on services utilized pre-registration was unsustainable.

2. Invoices drawn in the name of marketing office: The appellant also contested the denial of refund based on invoices being drawn in the name of their marketing office in Mumbai. The Tribunal noted that the output services were provided before the unit's registration, and thus, the denial of refund on this ground was unjustified. Referring to the Tribunal's previous decisions and the Allahabad High Court's judgment, the Tribunal set aside the denial of CENVAT Credit on this point.

3. Eligibility of credit for specific services: The appellant did not contest the denial of refund for certain services like rent-a-cab, personal insurance, and catering services, acknowledging the meager amount involved. The Tribunal affirmed the correctness of denying the refund for these specific services as they were not contested by the appellant.

4. Conclusion: The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by setting aside the denial of refund on services utilized pre-registration and invoices drawn in the name of the marketing office. However, the denial of refund for specific services not contested by the appellant was upheld. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, ensuring a fair and reasoned judgment.