2015 (6) TMI 748 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Belated service tax registration - Held that - Since the eligibility of the appellant to the cenvat credit on the input services has not been disputed by the Department and the only ground taken for disallowance is on account of non-registration of the service provider, I am of the considered opinion that the same is not a valid ground for disallowance of the benefit of refund, to which, the appellant is legally entitled to. - in absence of a statutory provision prescribing the condition that registration is mandatory, the authorities cannot take the view that the assessee shall not be entitled to the benefit of refund. I also find that placing reliance on the said judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court, this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M.L. Outsourcing Services (Supra) has allowed the cenvat credit by holding that registration of premises is not necessary for claiming the cenvat credit. Denial of refund benefit on the courier service, without discussing the nature of utilisation of such service by the service provider cannot be a defensible ground to deny the benefit of refund, especially in view of the fact that the output service has been exported by the appellant. - appellant is entitled for refund of service tax on the disputed input services and accordingly, I set-aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of unutilized cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Denial of cenvat credit on domestic courier service.
3. Requirement of service provider registration for claiming refund.
4. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, providing Business Support Services both domestically and internationally, filed a refund application under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, seeking refund of unutilized cenvat credit. The dispute arose from the denial of cenvat credit for the period prior to the appellant's service tax registration and on domestic courier services. The appellant argued that registration is not a prerequisite for claiming a refund under Rule 5, citing legal precedents supporting their position. The Tribunal found no legal basis to deny the refund solely based on delayed registration, as the appellant met the criteria for claiming the refund due to being an exporter of taxable services.

2. The denial of cenvat credit on the domestic courier service was challenged by the appellant, asserting that the service qualifies as an input service under the rules and is used for providing taxable services to clients both within and outside the country. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that the denial without proper justification regarding the service's utilization by the appellant was not defensible, especially when the output service was exported.

3. The Revenue contended that the appellant's delayed registration rendered them ineligible for the refund under Rule 5, citing specific provisions and a notification requiring timely registration. However, the Tribunal held that the registration requirement pertained to a different rule and not to Rule 5, which governs refund claims. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents to support its decision that lack of registration does not invalidate the appellant's right to claim the refund under Rule 5.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions, precedents, and the arguments presented by both parties to reach its decision. It emphasized that the lack of a specific provision mandating registration for refund claims under Rule 5, coupled with the precedents supporting the appellant's position, justified allowing the appeal and granting the appellant the refund of service tax on the disputed input services. The Tribunal set aside the earlier order and ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of legal interpretation and adherence to established precedents in tax refund cases.