2019 (4) TMI 441 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - mandatory registration required or not - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - Admittedly, there is no dispute about the factum of export of service as well as the receipt of foreign exchange for such export but the claim for refund pertains to the period prior to obtaining the registration for premises of the respondent - The Commissioner (A) has held that the requirement of registration cannot be held against the respondent by following the observations of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in mPortal India Wireless Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund - refund allowed. Whether the three refund claims are hit by time bar when they examined with regard to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that - This Section governs the sanction of refund and specifies that the claims for refund are to be filed within a period of one year from the relevant date specified in the said Section. The N/N. 5/2006 (NT) dated 14.3.2006 provides that the refund claims are to be submitted not more than once in a quarter in a calendar year before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B - all the three claims are filed within time. In respect of the claim for the period January to march 2009 filed on 14.9.2009, the benefit has already been allowed by the Commissioner (A). Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Requirement of mandatory registration for claiming refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Time limitation for filing refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the findings of the Commissioner (A) regarding the requirement of mandatory registration for claiming a refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue argued that since the export of output service was done without obtaining service tax registration, the refund was not admissible. However, the Commissioner (A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and held that there was no statutory provision imposing such a restriction. The Tribunal agreed with this view, emphasizing the absence of a legal mandate for registration as a condition for claiming CENVAT credit refund. The Tribunal set aside the previous orders and stated that the refund could be granted upon proof of payment of input service tax.

2. The issue of time limitation for filing refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was also addressed. The Larger Bench had previously clarified the conditions for considering refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal highlighted that the period for filing refund claims should align with Section 11B but extended to the end of the quarter in which the claims are made. Upon examination, it was found that all three refund claims were filed within the specified time limits. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A)'s decision to allow the refund claims filed within the stipulated time frame.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, confirming the decision of the Commissioner (A) regarding both the requirement of mandatory registration for claiming a refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the time limitation for filing refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The cross objection was also disposed of accordingly.