9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 676 - HC - Service Tax100% EOU - Refund of CENVAT credit - denial of refund on the ground of Non-Registration of premises Held that - Reliance placed in the case of MPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund of CENVAT credit without registration. 2. Conditions and limitations as per Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT). 3. Eligibility of CENVAT credit for unregistered premises. 4. Eligibility of CENVAT credit for car parking charges and other services. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund of CENVAT Credit Without Registration: The appellant (Revenue) contended that registration is a pre-requisite for availing CENVAT credit benefits under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Finance Act, 1994. The respondent, an EOU engaged in providing Business Auxiliary and Business Support Services, claimed refunds for service tax paid on input services. The adjudicating authority rejected part of the refund due to non-registration of premises and ineligible CENVAT credit on car parking charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund, stating that registration is not mandatory for claiming CENVAT credit refunds, a view upheld by CESTAT. The High Court referenced its decision in Commissioner of Services Tax-III, Chennai Vs. M/s. Scioinspire Consulting Services India Private Limited, affirming that Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not stipulate registration as a prerequisite for claiming refunds. 2. Conditions and Limitations as per Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT): The Revenue argued that the CESTAT failed to consider the safeguards, conditions, and limitations in the Appendix to Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT). The High Court examined Notification No.05/2006-CE(NT), which outlines the procedure for claiming refunds of unutilized input service credit. The notification requires the application to be made to the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, correlating with the location of the registered premises. However, the High Court found no clause in the notification that prohibits the grant of CENVAT credit if the premises are not registered, thus supporting the respondent's claim. 3. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit for Unregistered Premises: The adjudicating authority had rejected refunds for services received at unregistered premises. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed refunds for services received at subsequently registered premises but upheld disallowance for premises without registration certificates. CESTAT upheld this view, referencing the High Court's decision in Scioinspire Consulting Services, which distinguished between the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and the facts of the present case. The High Court reiterated that Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules does not require premises registration for claiming refunds, thus supporting the respondent's eligibility for CENVAT credit for services received at unregistered premises. 4. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit for Car Parking Charges and Other Services: The adjudicating authority rejected CENVAT credit for car parking charges, event management services, and other miscellaneous services, citing Rule 2(I) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed refunds for car parking charges, considering them part of the premises occupied by the respondent, but upheld the disallowance for event management services. The High Court, agreeing with the Commissioner (Appeals), found the reasoning sound and upheld the eligibility of CENVAT credit for car parking charges while maintaining the disallowance for event management services. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT. The Court held that the substantial questions of law were covered by its previous decision in Commissioner of Services Tax-III, Chennai Vs. M/s. Scioinspire Consulting Services India Private Limited, thus ruling in favor of the respondent and against the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
|
