Refund of accumulated credit for exports cannot be denied solely for pre-registration periods, but the claim must still be verified.

Refund of accumulated credit under Rule 5 for exported services cannot be denied merely because the claim relates to a period before service tax registration, where export activity and input-service credit entitlement are otherwise verifiable from the assessee's records. The decision recognises that pre-registration status alone is not a valid ground to reject refund eligibility. However, the refund amount still requires examination against the supporting documents before any sanction is granted, so consequential relief remains subject to verification of the quantum.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of accumulated credit under Rule 5 read with Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 could be denied merely because the claim related to a period prior to registration with the service tax department.

Analysis: The respondent was registered with STPI authorities, operated as a 100% EOU, and exported services only. The export activity and input-service credits were verifiable from records available with the assessee. In such circumstances, denial of refund solely on the ground that the claim related to a period before service tax registration was not justified. At the same time, the correctness of the refund amount had not been examined on the basis of the relevant supporting documents, so verification of the quantum was still necessary before consequential relief could be granted.

Conclusion: Refund eligibility could not be rejected merely for want of service tax registration for the relevant period, but the refund amount remained subject to verification.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of unutilised credit for exported services under Rule 5 cannot be denied solely on the ground of pre-registration period if export and credit entitlement are otherwise ascertainable from records, though the quantum must be verified before sanction.

---