2019 (6) TMI 203 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT Credit - output services are exported prior to registration - period January, 2009 to March,2009 - HELD THAT - In a recent decision in B THE COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI VERSUS BNP PARIBAS SUNDARAM GLOBAL SECURITIES OPERATIONS PVT LTD. 2018 (6) TMI 676 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the Hon ble High Court of Madras, has interalia held that Rule 5 of CCR,2004, does not stipulate registration of premises as a necessary pre-requisite for claiming a refund. Refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether refund of Cenvat credit can be allowed in respect of registered premises of service providers from which the output services are exported prior to registration.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolved around the eligibility of a service provider for a refund of Cenvat credit in relation to the export of output services from registered premises before registration. The refund claims of the respondent were initially rejected by the adjudicating authority for the period January 2009 to March 2009 on the basis that the premises were not registered at the time of export. However, in appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a previous Tribunal decision and allowed the refund. The Revenue, aggrieved by this decision, filed an appeal.

During the hearing, the Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The Advocate for the respondent cited various case laws, including a decision by the Hon'ble High Court, to support the contention that registration of the assessee's premises is not a prerequisite for claiming a refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled in favor of the respondents in the cited case laws, including the recent decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Pvt. Ltd. The High Court had clarified that Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, does not mandate the registration of premises as a necessary condition for refund claims.

Based on the legal precedents and the recent High Court decision, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal highlighted that the High Court's position was consistent with its earlier rulings, further reinforcing the conclusion that registration of premises is not a prerequisite for claiming a refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the eligibility of the respondent for the refund of Cenvat credit even for exports from unregistered premises.