2017 (7) TMI 851 - AT - Service Tax

Rebate claim - input services utilized in the activity of export of services - denial on the ground that during the period when services were received some of the premises of the appellant company were not registered with the Service Tax Department - N/N. 12/2005-ST - Held that - the issue is covered by the precedent ruling of this Tribunal in appellants own case 2017 (4) TMI 1084 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , for the quarters April to June, 2007, July to September, 2007 and October to December, 2007, where it was held that taking notice of the fact that all such unlisted premises had subsequently been registered and recognized for the appellant, and also relying on the ruling of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Private Ltd 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund - appellant is entitled to rebate - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of claim under Notification No.12/2005-ST for rebate on Service Tax paid on input services utilized in the export of services.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs disallowing part of the claim under Notification No.12/2005-ST for rebate on Service Tax paid on input services utilized in the export of services.

2. The appellant, a STPI unit, provided Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval services involving data conversion and capturing. They exported 100% of their services and claimed refund/rebate on service tax paid on input services. The claims for refund were rejected for specific periods and amounts.

3. The reason for disallowance was the non-registration of some premises of the appellant with the Service Tax Department during the period of service receipt. However, it was argued that these additional premises were taken on rent due to business expansion and were subsequently registered. The appellant contended that these premises supported the company's activities, bills were raised from the registered office, and foreign exchange was received.

4. The appellant cited rulings from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court to support their case, emphasizing that registration is not a precondition for refund of input services used for export. The learned Assistant Commissioner relied on the impugned order supporting the disallowance.

5. The Tribunal considered the precedent ruling in the appellant's own case for previous quarters, where unlisted premises were subsequently registered and recognized. Citing the relevant findings, the Tribunal allowed the ground in favor of the appellant, setting aside the disallowance of rebate/refund on input services utilized in exporting services.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal decided in favor of the appellant, overturning the impugned orders and directing the adjudicating authority to grant the refund within 45 days with applicable interest. The appeals were allowed, and the decision was dictated in court.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments, rulings, and final decision made by the Tribunal.