2017 (11) TMI 833

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ract service. Further the Commissioner(Appeals) has also held that the respondents are eligible for refund on input service invoices addressed to premises other than the registered premises. The issue involved in both the appeals is identical and hence they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondent is registered as service provider for various categories of services such as Business Support Services and Works Contract Service. The respondent has filed a refund claim on 27/12/2012 as per Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006, for refund of Rs. 45,79,412/- on unutilised CENVAT credit of service tax said to have been paid by them, on the input services availed by them for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he premises other than the premises registered is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPortal (India) Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2012(27) STR 134 (Kar.)] wherein the Karnataka High Court has held that for availing the CNEVAT credit on input services, registration is not mandatory. He further submitted that the judgment in the case of mPortal (India) Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has been accepted by the Department on monetary limit and not on merits. He also submitted that similar issues are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CST, Noida Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existent in law". Therefore, in view of the said judgment, I hold that rejection of the refund by the lower authority on this ground is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. I also observe that Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules provides that the service provider shall be allowed to take credit of input services but there is no condition of obtaining prior registration. 6. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by dismissing both the appeals of the Revenue. (Operative portion of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X