2019 (4) TMI 1003 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - export of services - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the appellant was registered with the Central Excise Department as required under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for claiming refund at the time of export. They have shifted their premises and the new address was yet to be registered. The old premises was registered and change of address resulted in change in the jurisdiction of office. Mere change in the jurisdiction of the office, because the new address is located elsewhere which would disentitle the appellant from claiming of refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction for claiming refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 due to change in premises.

Analysis:
1. The Department filed three appeals against Orders-in-Appeal rejecting refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 due to a change in premises. The appellant, engaged in export of software services, shifted to a new address under a different jurisdiction. The lower authority rejected the refund claim citing jurisdictional issues. The first appellate authority remanded the matter to transfer the application to the new premises' jurisdictional officer. The Department contended that since the new address was not registered at the time of export, the refund was not valid under Rule 5.

2. The Department reiterated its stance, while the respondent's consultant argued that the appellant was registered with the Central Excise Department but had shifted to a new, unregistered address. The first appellate authority correctly directed the transfer of the refund application to the new jurisdictional officer. The respondent contended that the change in premises did not invalidate the refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

3. The Tribunal considered both arguments and found that the appellant was registered with the Central Excise Department at the time of export, fulfilling the Rule 5 requirement. The change in premises did not disqualify the refund claim, as the appellant's old address was registered. The shift in address leading to a change in jurisdiction did not impact the eligibility for refund under Rule 5. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, rejecting the Department's appeals.

Therefore, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed on 13.02.2019.