2018 (11) TMI 1214 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT Credit - rejection for the reason that the input services have been filed by the appellant prior to taking registration and therefore credit is not eligible - Held that - The said issue has been settled by the decision of Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CST, Chennai vs E-Care India Private Limited 2017 (4) TMI 1089 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that registration cannot be a ground for rejection of refund - refund is to be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against refund order under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized credit on input services tax credit.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Department challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who had sanctioned the refund claimed by the respondents under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The refund was sought for unutilized credit on input services tax credit under Notification No.5/2006 dt.14.3.2006. The adjudicating authority had initially rejected the refund on the grounds that the input services were availed before registration, making the credit ineligible. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision and allowed the refund, leading the Department to approach the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the Department's representative reiterated the grounds of appeal, while no representation was made on behalf of the respondent despite issuance of notice. The Tribunal considered the matter in light of the rejection based on the timing of availing input services concerning registration. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in a relevant case which had addressed a similar issue. The Tribunal noted that the Department's argument regarding registration for claiming refund had been consistently rejected by the First Appellant Authority and the Tribunal itself.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the Karnataka High Court had ruled in favor of the assessee in similar cases. In a recent judgment, the Tribunal also took a similar view, emphasizing that the delay in addressing the issue was not based on the merits but on procedural grounds. The Tribunal clarified that the dismissal of applications for delay condonation did not impact the decision on the refund issue itself.

Based on the precedents and legal principles established in the cited cases, the Tribunal concluded that the refund sanction was lawful and appropriate. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and dismissed the appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the Department's application for a change of cause title. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court, confirming the dismissal of the appeal and the allowance of the cause title change.