CENVAT credit refund for export services cannot be denied solely for lack of premises registration where substantive eligibility is proved.

Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit for export of services cannot be denied solely because the service-exporting premises were unregistered, where the export activity and refund eligibility were otherwise established. The HC followed its earlier decision on identical questions of law and held that subsequent registration, or absence of registration at the relevant time, did not defeat the substantive refund claim under Rule 5 and the relevant refund notification. The objection based on non-registration was rejected and the assessee's refund claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 could be denied on the ground that the premises from which the export services were rendered were not registered, and whether the conditions in the relevant refund notification barred such refund.

Analysis: The appeals arose from denial of refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on the premise that registration of the service-exporting premises was a precondition. The Court followed its earlier decision on the same issue and the supporting line of authorities, and held that the entitlement to refund could not be defeated merely because registration was obtained subsequently or was absent at the relevant time, where the export services and the credit claim were otherwise established. The Court also treated the issue as covered by the earlier decision rendered on identical questions of law and found no reason to take a different view.

Conclusion: The objection based on non-registration was rejected, and the refund claim was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit relating to export of services cannot be denied solely for want of registration of the premises when the substantive eligibility for refund is otherwise satisfied.

---