2018 (5) TMI 923 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Refund claim – rejection on the grounds that the operations were carried out at different locations and which were not registered in the Centralised registration and also on the ground that invoices issued by the Service Provider were not in the name of appellant – Held that: – the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Private Limited vs. CST [2011 (9) TMI 450 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], is applicable to the facts of the case where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund – refund cannot be rejected on this ground.
–
Refund claim – rejection on the ground that the invoices were in the name of Pioneer overseas Corporation – Held that: – the business activity of Pioneer Overseas Corporation has been transferred to appellant by business transfer agreement w.e.f. 01.01.2015 and the reasoning given by the appellant that few vendors could not update their records with new addres
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
422/- on the ground that invoices issued by the Service Provider were not in the name of appellant. 4. Appellant herein is an exporter of services and was availing CENVAT credit of various input services; he had different locations in Hyderabad and have a centralised registration at Somajiguda, Hyderabad. They availed the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various services at different locations which were taken on hire/rent by them from land owners. It is the case of Revenue that since these premises were not registered with the service tax department and requirement of registration is a must to avail the CENVAT credit and refund thereof in the case of export units, the refund applications were denied by both the lower authorities. 5. The first appellate authority in the impugned order in respect of the refund amount of ₹ 14,94,636/- has recorded specifically that export of output services took place from locations where unregistered premises were located and the judgment of H
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
der: (6). The assessee is a 100% export oriented unit. The export of software at the relevant point of time was not a taxable service. However, the assessee had paid input tax on various services. According to the assessee a sum of ₹ 4,36,985/- is accumulated Cenvat credit. The Tribunal has categorically held that even though the export of software is not a taxable service but still the assessee cannot be denied the Cenvat credit. The assessee is entitled to the refund of Cenvat credit. Similarly insofar as refund of Cenvat credit is concerned, the limitation under Section 11B does not apply for refund a accumulated Cenvat credit. Therefore, bar of limitation cannot be a ground to refuse Cenvat credit to the assessee. (7). Insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, learned counsel appearing for both parties were unable to point out any provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restricti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Service tax. 7. Similar view was expressed by Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of CST Chennai [2017(3) GSTL 45 (Mad.)]; Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CCE vs. Curadev Pharma (P) Ltd [2017(7) GSTL 269 (All.)] is so held that for claiming refund under notification No. 5/206- CE, there is no condition precedent for availing credit merely for the reason that premises were not registered, benefit can not be denied. Identical views have been expressed by Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of GST & CE vs. BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Pvt. Ltd. [2018(2) TMI 1416-MADRAS HIGH COURT)]. 8. On the face of such overwhelming judicial pronouncements on the issue, I find that the impugned order needs to be set aside and I do so. 9. As regards refund of an amount of ₹ 6,35,422/- on another ground for rejection that the invoices were in the name of Pioneer overseas Corporation. It is on record and undisputed that the business ac
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =