Non-registration of premises cannot by itself deny CENVAT credit or service tax refund when substantive entitlement exists.

Non-registration of the premises, by itself, was held not to justify denial of CENVAT credit or consequential refund where substantive entitlement under the rules was otherwise established. The Court followed its earlier Division Bench view that refund of service tax could not be refused merely because the assessee had no service tax registration during the relevant period, and that receipt of input service at a registered premises was not a condition precedent for availing the benefit. The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax and CENVAT credit could be denied merely because the premises were not registered and the assessee had no service tax registration during the relevant period.

Analysis: The Court followed the earlier Division Bench view that refund cannot be denied only on the ground of non-registration of the premises. It was held that, under the relevant rules, receipt of input service at a registered premises was not a condition precedent for availing the benefit, and the absence of registration by itself did not justify denial of CENVAT credit or consequential refund.

Conclusion: The question was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-registration of the premises is not, by itself, a valid ground to deny CENVAT credit or refund where the substantive entitlement under the rules is otherwise established.

---