2023 (6) TMI 544 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal affirms refund for M/s. Saipem India Projects Ltd., clarifies Service Tax Registration not mandatory

The Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Saipem India Projects Limited

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming the lower authority's decision to grant refunds to M/s. Saipem India Projects Ltd. It held that ... Refund of accumulated input credit - ineligibility of refund prior to registration - ineligible input services - Proportionate credit was arrived by restricting the formula to the period after registration - HELD THAT:- The learned lower appellate authority has relied upon the decision in the case of MPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] on the issue of allowing accumulated CENVAT Credit for refund prior to registration held that In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law - Thus, Whether it be registration or centralized registration, when there is no mandatory provision in the Rules regarding registration, the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied. The case-law relied upon by the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE VERSUS SUTHAM NYLOCOTS [2014 (11) TMI 496 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is distinguishable on facts as the decision was rendered prior to the coming into effect of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and our view is also supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the cases of THE COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI VERSUS BNP PARIBAS SUNDARAM GLOBAL SECURITIES OPERATIONS PVT LTD. [2018 (6) TMI 676 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Chennai v. Pay Pal India Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (7) TMI 321 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] relied upon by the learned Advocate for the respondent, wherein it has been held that Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has not mandated registration as a condition for refund of accumulated credit. Disallowance of credit on Authorized Service Station, CHA Service, Advertising Service and Real Estate Agent Service - HELD THAT:- Disallowing the credit on the aforesaid services is not sustainable as the definition of ‘input service’ is inclusive and as long as it is used in or in relation to the business, the assessee is eligible for taking the credit. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision rendered in the case of CCE, NAGPUR VERSUS ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD.[2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product are covered under the definition of ‘input service’ and in the present case, the outdoor catering services being integrally connected with the business of the manufacture of cement, credit of service tax paid out on catering services has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal. Appeal of Revenue dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Eligibility of refund prior to centralized registration.2. Refund rejection for certain services not considered eligible input services.3. Proportionate credit calculation restricted to period after registration.Summary:Eligibility of Refund Prior to Centralized Registration:The Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai, appealed against the decision allowing refunds to M/s. Saipem India Projects Ltd. The lower appellate authority relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision in M/s. mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore, which held that Service Tax Registration is not mandatory for refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on input services used for export of services. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the absence of a statutory provision mandating registration means CENVAT Credit cannot be denied.Refund Rejection for Certain Services:The Department argued that certain input services were not eligible for credit. However, the lower appellate authority, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., held that 'input service' covers services used in relation to the business of manufacture, whether prior to or after manufacture. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the definition of 'input service' is inclusive and covers services integrally connected with the business.Proportionate Credit Calculation:The Department contended that the formula for refund should only apply post-registration. The Tribunal found no merit in this argument, reiterating that the law does not mandate centralized registration for refund eligibility.Conclusion:The Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the lower appellate authority's decision to allow refunds to M/s. Saipem India Projects Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition of 'input service' is broad and inclusive, covering services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product. The Tribunal also noted that there is no statutory requirement for centralized registration to claim refunds under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.