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>Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Order on CENVAT Credit Eligibility</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Service Tax Versus M/s. Maxim India Integrated Circuit Designs (P) Ltd</h3> Commissioner of Service Tax Versus M/s. Maxim India Integrated Circuit Designs (P) Ltd - TMI Issues involved:Appeals against the order dated 27.11.2015 disposing of five appeals; Refund claims under Notification No.5/2006-CE; Rejection of refund claims due to non-fulfillment of conditions; Registration requirement for claiming refund; Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004; Judgment on the relevance of registration for claiming CENVAT credit; Appeal against the Commissioner (A) order; Applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court.Analysis:The Revenue filed two appeals against the order dated 27.11.2015 where the Commissioner (A) disposed of five appeals, including the two filed by the Revenue. The issue in both appeals was common, leading to their disposal through a common order. The assessee, registered for Information Technology Software Services (ITSS), filed five refund claims under Notification No.5/2006-CE claiming CENVAT credit on service tax for input services used in exported services. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims citing non-registration during the claimed period. However, the Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal, stating that registration is not a prerequisite for claiming CENVAT credit based on the judgment in the case of M/s. mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner (A) directed the lower authority to consider the relevance of unutilized registered premises to the export activity. The Revenue appealed against this decision.The learned AR argued that registration is essential for claiming refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, citing Section 69 of the Finance Act. He referred to various rules to support the requirement of registration for claiming a refund and tried to distinguish the judgment in the case of mPortal Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal considered the arguments and the impugned order, noting the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the mPortal case. The Tribunal found that the issue was settled by the High Court, emphasizing that registration is not mandatory for claiming CENVAT credit. The High Court held that denial of refund based on non-registration is not justified if service tax payment on input services is proven. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A) order based on the High Court judgment, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.In conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the mPortal case to determine that registration is not a prerequisite for claiming CENVAT credit. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A) order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals as the denial of refund based on non-registration was deemed unjustified. The judgment established that service tax payment on input services is essential for claiming a refund, irrespective of registration status.
TaxTMI 