2015 (11) TMI 352 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - input services - Held that - Appellant herein is providing various services and is registered as a STPI unit with Software Technology Park, is registered with the department on 28.11.2008 and the services which are rendered by the appellant are for exports without payment of service tax. Because of continuous export of taxable services appellant was not in a position to utilize the CENVAT credit of service tax on the input services . - the issue is squarely settled in favour of the appellant and this view has been followed by various Benches of the Tribunal 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of refund claims for service tax paid on input services received prior to registration.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed against the rejection of refund claims by the appellant, a service provider for export purposes registered in an STPI unit with Software Technology Park. The appellant filed refund claims for service tax paid on input services for the period April to September 2008. The authorities rejected the claims, citing that the services were received prior to registration. The appellant contended that the issue was settled in a High Court case and other tribunal decisions. The Counsel argued that the appellant had exported services, and the rejection was solely based on the timing of service receipt in relation to registration.

The Department's representative defended the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing the importance of registration to confirm regular return filing and claim authenticity. The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and examined the records. The undisputed facts revealed that the appellant was a registered STPI unit providing services for export without paying service tax. Due to continuous export, the appellant could not utilize CENVAT credit on input services.

The first appellate authority's findings highlighted that the appellant filed refund claims for a period before registration, which was the basis for rejection. However, the Tribunal referred to a High Court case where it was clarified that registration was not a mandatory condition for claiming CENVAT credit. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' decision, stating that the appellant was entitled to the refund claims despite the timing of service receipt in relation to registration. The decision was in favor of the appellant, aligning with previous tribunal decisions on the matter.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the rejection of refund claims based on the timing of service receipt in relation to registration. The decision emphasized that registration was not a prerequisite for claiming CENVAT credit, as clarified by the High Court and supported by various tribunal decisions.