2017 (11) TMI 833 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - invoices addressed to the premises other than the registered premises - Held that - reliance placed in the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPortal (India) Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that there is no condition for availing CENVAT credit of input services, there is no condition for obtaining prior registration - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of input services, eligibility for refund on input service invoices addressed to premises other than registered premises.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) allowing refund on certain input services while denying refund for photography services and works contract service. The Commissioner(Appeals) also ruled that the respondents are entitled to a refund on input service invoices addressed to premises other than the registered premises, which was the main issue in both appeals.

The respondent, a service provider, filed a refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services availed for exported services. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the input invoices were raised to addresses in Maharashtra, different from the registered premises in Bangalore. The Commissioner(Appeals) overturned this decision, leading to the Revenue filing the appeals.

The Revenue contended that allowing refund on input service invoices addressed to premises other than the registered premises was not legally sustainable. They argued that the Commissioner(Appeals) wrongly relied on a judgment by the Karnataka High Court, which the Department had accepted only on monetary limits, not on merits. Similar issues were pending before the Supreme Court, but no stay had been granted.

The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner(Appeals) decision. They upheld the reliance on the Karnataka High Court judgment, which stated that there is no statutory requirement for registration to claim CENVAT credit on input services. The Tribunal emphasized that the CENVAT Credit Rules do not impose a restriction on registration for claiming credit, and the rejection of refund based on this ground was unsustainable. Therefore, the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, affirming the Commissioner(Appeals) order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals) decision regarding the eligibility for a refund on input service invoices addressed to premises other than the registered premises, citing the absence of a legal requirement for registration to claim CENVAT credit. The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory provisions and legal grounds in determining refund eligibility, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeals.