TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Refund under CENVAT Credit Rules upheld for service exporters; registration not mandatory for claiming refund</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Ajuba Solutions India (P) Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Ajuba Solutions India (P) Ltd. - 2016 (46) S.T.R. 677 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Refund claim on input services received before registration.2. Legal provisions on registration for exported services.3. Applicability of CENVAT Credit Rules on registration for claiming refund.Analysis:Issue 1: The respondent, a Business Processing Outsourcing Service provider, claimed a refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules for input services received before their registration in December 2008. The Revenue rejected the claim, arguing that services received before registration were not eligible for refund. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund, citing a Karnataka High Court decision. The Revenue challenged this decision.Issue 2: The Revenue contended that registration was required for claiming a refund, citing legal provisions. They argued that even though exported services were exempt, there was still a tax liability, necessitating registration. The appellant, opposing this, highlighted that the Karnataka High Court found no rule mandating registration for claiming refunds under CENVAT Credit Rules.Issue 3: The Tribunal analyzed the requirement of registration under Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, noting that it applies to persons liable for paying service tax, not those solely subject to the tax levy. The appellant, fully exporting services, was not liable to pay tax and had not taken registration. The Tribunal observed that the department did not insist on registration for units fully exporting services. It was noted that registration became necessary only when claiming a refund. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's stay application, affirming that refund under Rule 5 cannot be denied for services received before registration, especially when the department did not challenge the service receipt, tax payment, or export of services.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that registration for claiming a refund under CENVAT Credit Rules was not mandatory for units exporting services, especially when tax liabilities were exempted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
