2024 (5) TMI 1223 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - availing CENVAT credit after the expiry of six months from the date of issue of invoices - HELD THAT - The only reason stated in the impugned order for holding against the appellant is the delay beyond six months in taking the Cenvat credit. As this issue has been settled in favor of the appellant vide the above referred order of the Tribunal, I do not find any merits in the impugned order and set aside the same. In the appeal filed by the appellant, he has not challenged the denial of the refund claim on lunch and dinner charges, Rs.25,288/- and pantry and mobile charges Rs.10,043/- are not covered under input services. No submission has been made on this account. Even at Sl No 13 in the appeal memo amount of refund rejected has been indicated as Rs 7,29,970/-. Accordingly, impugned order to that extent for denial of refund in respect of dinner charges and mobile charges is upheld. The, order to the extent of rejecting refund amount of Rs.7,29,970/- is set aside and remaining part of the impugned order is upheld. Accordingly, impugned order is modified to this extent. Appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the rejection of a refund claim on various grounds including availing CENVAT credit after the expiry of six months from the date of issue of invoices, the eligibility of CENVAT credit without registration, and the admissibility of CENVAT credit taken on invoices addressed to unregistered premises.

Rejection of Refund Claim on CENVAT Credit Availed After Six Months:
The appellant's refund claim was rejected due to availing CENVAT credit after six months from the date of issue of invoices, as per Rule 4 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant failed to provide concrete evidence to substantiate that the credit was availed within the stipulated time, leading to the rejection of the refund claim.

Eligibility of CENVAT Credit Without Registration:
The Tribunal observed that Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not mandate registration as a precondition for claiming CENVAT credit. Various judgments, including those of the Karnataka High Court and the Madras High Court, have established that registration is not a requirement for availing CENVAT credit, and the credit involved in this case was deemed admissible for refund under relevant provisions.

Judgment and Modification of Order:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order that rejected the refund claim based on availing CENVAT credit after six months, citing precedent decisions that the time restriction does not apply to invoices issued before September 1, 2014. The order was modified to uphold the denial of refund for certain charges not covered under input services, while allowing the appeal in part and partially modifying the original order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim based on availing CENVAT credit after six months, while upholding the denial of refund for specific charges not covered under input services. The judgment clarified the eligibility of CENVAT credit without registration and referenced relevant legal provisions and case laws to support its decision.