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>Court Upholds Refund for Export Unit; Emphasizes Compliance</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER, SERVICE TAX Versus PANGEA 3 LEGAL DATABASE SYSTEMS P. LTD.</h3> The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, a 100% export-oriented unit, allowing the refund and CENVAT credit for services used at unregistered premises. ... 100% EOU - Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground of non-registration of premises - Held that:- This very question came up for consideration in a matter before this Court in the case of Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate Vs. M/s Atrenta India Pvt. Noida reported in [2017 (4) TMI 563 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein this Court took a view that the refund could not be denied to the assessee merely on the basis of non-registration of the premises - refund allowed. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in allowing the refund and CENVAT credit of the services, namely, carpet dry cleaning, home plant service, interior decoration services, renting on car parking, company secretary services, supply of meal vouchers, travel insurance services and on the strength of invoices (involving CENVAT credit of ₹ 16,579/-). Addressed to Guest House and other residential premises? - Held that:- This in our opinion it is a pure finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal calling for no interference by this Court in the facts of this case. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Whether CESTAT was correct in allowing the refund and CENVAT credit of services used at unregistered premisesRs.2. Whether CESTAT was correct in allowing the refund and CENVAT credit of various services provided at unregistered premisesRs.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement to CENVAT credit for services provided at unregistered premises by a 100% export-oriented unit. The department argued that the registration initially only covered one location, and the addition of another premise meant the CENVAT benefit could not be availed before the inclusion of the new premise in the registration. The Tribunal, however, overturned the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing the centralized registration that included the new premise as conclusive proof of legal occupation and service provision. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit for services provided at the unregistered premises.2. The second issue pertained to the specific services for which CENVAT credit was claimed, amounting to Rs. 16,579. The Tribunal examined the evidence and limited the credit to services for which eligibility was established, denying credit for items where eligibility was not proven. The Court found this to be a factual determination by the Tribunal, warranting no interference. The appellant conceded the amount in question to be Rs. 16,578. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the revenue department on both issues.In a related matter, the Court referenced a previous judgment involving a similar issue where it was held that the denial of refund based on non-registration of premises was not valid. Consistent with this precedent, the Court ruled against the revenue department on the first issue. The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory provisions and precedent in determining the entitlement to CENVAT credit and refunds, emphasizing the need for legal compliance and established criteria for such benefits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
