2014 (8) TMI 584 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim in terms of Notification No. 5/2006-C.E., dated 14-3-2006 in respect of non-registered unit - Commissioner by the Order-in-Revision has restricted the refund claim to only three units covered by the common registration and ordered recovery of refund already sanctioned relating to credit attributable to the Gurgaon unit - Held that - Considering the fact that there is no dispute that the applicant had exported the services rendered from Gurgaon unit also and that the Bangalore unit was reportedly raising the invoices for export proceedings in respect of the BPO units, the denial of refund of credit in respect of the Gurgaon unit is not justified. In view of the above, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of dues as per the impugned order and stay of recovery thereof till the disposal of the appeal - Stay granted.

Issues:
1. Refund claim under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. restricted to three units only.
2. Denial of refund for credit accumulated in Gurgaon unit.
3. Justification for recovery of refund already sanctioned.
4. Procedural violation in including Gurgaon unit in common registration.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the refund claim made by an applicant running a BPO under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. The original authority had sanctioned the refund claim for services utilized in all units, including Gurgaon, under common registration. However, the Commissioner restricted the refund claim to only three units covered by the common registration, leading to the issue of whether the restriction was justified.

2. The Chartered Accountant representing the applicant argued that the applicant had taken steps to include the Gurgaon unit in the common registration, and any violation was procedural in nature. It was contended that the denial of refund for the Gurgaon unit was unjustified since services were exported from that unit as well. The key question was whether the denial of the refund for the Gurgaon unit was justified based on the procedural violation and the export activities from that unit.

3. The Commissioner's decision to order the recovery of the refund already sanctioned for the Gurgaon unit was challenged on the grounds that the violation, if any, was not attributable to the applicant. The argument was that since the applicant had taken common registration for three units and initiated steps for including the Gurgaon unit, ordering the recovery of the refund was not justified. This raised the issue of whether the recovery of the already sanctioned refund was reasonable under the circumstances of the case.

4. After considering the submissions from both sides and examining the records, the tribunal found that the denial of the refund of credit in respect of the Gurgaon unit was not justified. It was noted that the applicant had exported services from the Gurgaon unit, and the invoices for export proceedings were raised by the Bangalore unit. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, waiving the pre-deposit of dues and staying the recovery of the amount until the appeal was disposed of. This decision was based on the understanding that the denial of the refund for the Gurgaon unit was not justified given the export activities and the common registration in place.

← Previous Next →