2015 (11) TMI 678 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - CENVAT Credit - Non registeration of branches - Bar of limitation - Held that - Credit could not have been denied on the ground that the branches were not registered. As regards availment of credit by Bangalore headquarter without a centralized registration, the fact that appellant had applied for centralized registration but Department issued registration only in respect of headquarter would render it to be a technical issue since there is a substantive adherence of law in view of the fact that service tax has been apparently paid on the basis of centralized registration and therefore credit could have been taken in the centrally registered office. Therefore it cannot be said that credit has been availed wrongly. As regards nexus, without a premises it cannot be said that services can be rendered and therefore the service of renting of immovable property received in the branches were engaged in the activity of providing services cannot be denied. Therefore, on merits appellants have a case. - impugned orders have no merit and have to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved: Refund of service tax, centralized registration, admissibility of CENVAT credit, time-barred show-cause notices.

Refund of Service Tax: The judgment pertains to two appeals where the refund of service tax was in question. The original adjudicating authority had sanctioned a refund, which was later held to be wrongly sanctioned and revised by the Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The total amounts involved in the appeals were Rs. 7,31,625/- and Rs. 3,99,094/-.

Centralized Registration: The appellant had applied for centralized registration for their branches in Coimbatore, Chennai, Hyderabad, and Secunderabad. Initially, the registration certificate was issued only for the Bangalore unit, omitting Secunderabad. Subsequently, after reapplication, a centralized registration certificate was issued, including Secunderabad. The appellant applied for a refund of service tax paid for input services, which was challenged by the Commissioner through show-cause notices issued beyond the one-year period.

Admissibility of CENVAT Credit: The Chartered Accountant representing the appellant argued that the credit of service tax paid for services received in branches should not have been denied based on registration status. The decision in a previous case supported this argument. The issue of availing credit without centralized registration was deemed a technicality, as the tax had been paid based on centralized registration. The nexus between services rendered and premises was crucial, and the renting of immovable property for branches was considered part of the service activity.

Time-Barred Show-Cause Notices: The appellant challenged the show-cause notices on grounds of being time-barred, among other reasons. However, the Tribunal did not delve into this aspect as the case was decided on the merits of the admissibility of credit and the nexus between services and premises. Ultimately, the impugned orders were found to lack merit, leading to the appeals being allowed with consequential relief for the appellant.