CENVAT credit refund on exported services cannot be denied solely for non-registration where precedent supports the claim.

Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on export of services could not be denied merely because the premises were not registered, where the claim was otherwise governed by the applicable rules, notifications and binding precedent. The Madras High Court followed earlier decisions on the same legal questions and held that non-registration, by itself, was not a valid ground to reject the refund. The assessee therefore retained the refund allowance and the revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of CENVAT credit was admissible for exported services despite non-registration, and whether the conditions in the relevant notifications barred such refund.

Analysis: The appeal arose from rejection of part of a refund claim on the ground that the premises were not registered. The Court noted that the same legal questions had already been answered in earlier decisions concerning refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on export of services. Following those decisions, and considering the governing rules and notifications, the Court held that the refund claim could not be denied merely on the basis of non-registration where the issue stood covered against the revenue.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order allowing refund was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on export of services cannot be denied solely for want of registration where the claim is otherwise covered by the governing rules, notifications, and binding precedent.

---