2017 (1) TMI 237 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized credit - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with N/N. 5/2006-CE (NT) - Time Bar - Held that - The period has been computed by the authorites below from the date of export of services instead of computing the time from the date of receipt of foreign currency or the date of invoices - reliance placed on the decision of the case of CCE ST Hyderabad Vs M/s Hyundai Motor India Engg (P) Ltd. 2015 (3) TMI 1049 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT where it was held that the export of service the relevant date is the relevant date of invoices and not the date of export services - matter remanded to the original authority for reconsideration of the issue of limitation after taking into account the date of export invoices. Whether the appellant is eligible for refund of credit of service tax paid on various services which were availed on invoices issued to the premises which were not included in the registration certificate? - Held that - reliance placed in the decision of the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund - non-registration of premises is not sufficient ground for rejection of refund. Appellant is eligible for refund of claim. Appeal allowed - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Computation of refund period from the date of export of services.
3. Eligibility for refund of credit of service tax paid on services invoiced to unregistered premises.

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved the issue of refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants, registered as service providers, sought refunds for input services used in providing output services exported by them. The refund claims were rejected based on the grounds of limitation, with authorities computing the period from the date of export of services. The Ld. Counsel argued that the period for filing refund claims should be calculated from the date of invoice or receipt of foreign currency, citing previous Tribunal orders and legal precedents. The Tribunal, considering the relevant date for export services, remanded the appeals for reconsideration of limitation issues based on the date of export invoices, aligning with judicial principles and previous orders.

2. In the case of appeal ST/28208/2013, the issue revolved around the eligibility for refund of credit of service tax paid on services invoiced to premises not included in the registration certificate. The Ld. Counsel contended that registration was not a mandatory precondition for availing CENVAT Credit, referencing a relevant legal judgment. The Tribunal, following the legal precedent cited, concluded that the non-registration of premises was not sufficient grounds for rejecting the refund claim. It was noted that the department did not dispute the eligibility of input services for credit. Consequently, the appellant was deemed eligible for the refund claim, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.

3. The judgment highlighted the importance of computing refund periods correctly, emphasizing the date of export invoices for export services. It also underscored the significance of registration in relation to availing CENVAT Credit, clarifying that non-registration of certain premises did not invalidate the refund claim. The Tribunal's decision in remanding certain appeals for reconsideration showcased a commitment to applying legal principles and precedents to ensure fair and accurate adjudication of refund claims in line with statutory provisions and judicial interpretations.