2019 (12) TMI 237 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - refund has been rejected since the premises in which the input services were availed were not a registered premises - HELD THAT - The issue whether credit is eligible on input services availed in unregistered is settled by the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-III, CHENNAI VERSUS CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI M/S. SCIOINSPIRE CONSULTING SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD, CHENNAI 2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules does not stipulate registration of premises as a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund. The appeal filed by the department is without merits - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim on the grounds of premises not being registered.
- Eligibility of credit on input services availed in unregistered premises.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI was filed by the department challenging the order of rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the premise that the input services were availed in unregistered premises. The authorized representative for the Appellant reiterated the grounds of appeal during the hearing, emphasizing the rejection of the refund due to the unregistered nature of the premises.

In response, the Advocate for the Respondent cited a precedent set by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in a similar case, highlighting that the issue of credit eligibility on input services availed in unregistered premises had already been settled. Referring to the decision involving Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai – III, Chennai Vs CESTAT, Chennai & M/s,. Scionspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2017, the Advocate argued that the department's appeal lacked merit in light of the established legal precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the settled legal position, as per the cited judgment.

The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, with Hon’ble Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S and Hon’ble Shri P. Anjani Kumar presiding, upheld the decision of the lower authority to set aside the rejection of the refund claim. The Tribunal’s ruling was based on the established legal principle regarding the eligibility of credit on input services availed in unregistered premises, as clarified by the precedent set by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. The dismissal of the department’s appeal signifies the adherence to legal precedents and the application of established principles in resolving the issue at hand.