TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 748
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... domestic services are very meagre, there was no scope for utilising the entire cenvat credit of service tax taken on input services and accordingly, for the disputed period, the appellant had filed the refund application under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, claiming refund of the unutilised cenvat credit. The refund application filed by the appellant for the quarter ending September, 2012 was partly denied to the appellant on the ground that the cenvat credit from the period 01.07.2012 to 31st August, 2012 was taken prior to obtaining Service Tax registration by the appellant as a service provider. Further, cenvat credit of Rs. 129/- on the domestic courier service has also been denied on the ground that the said service has no n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Service Tax, reported in 2013 (12) TMI 621 CESTAT, New Delhi. 3. Per-contra, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submits that Rule 4 (1) of the service tax Rules and Notification No.27/12-CE dated 18.06.2012 specifically provides that the service provider has to statutorily required to be registered within 30 days from the commencement of the business activities, which in the present case has not been complied with by the appellant. According to the ld. D.R., since the appellant got itself registered after 60 days on 31st August 2012, Cenvat benefit by way of refund under Rule 5 of the rules is not permissible to the appellant. He further submits that the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ities. It is for some other purpose, the requirement of registration has been provided in Rule 4 of the Service Tax rules as well as in the Notification dated 18.06.2012 and not for the purpose of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. In the present case, since the eligibility of the appellant to the cenvat credit on the input services has not been disputed by the Department and the only ground taken for disallowance is on account of non-registration of the service provider, I am of the considered opinion that the same is not a valid ground for disallowance of the benefit of refund, to which, the appellant is legally entitled to. 6. I also find that the judgement cited by the ld. Chartered Accountant for the appellant in the case of mPortal I....