TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Service. The refund claim involved in appeal No.ST/615/2011 of Rs. 8,64,159/- relates to the period March 2009 and the other refund claim in appeal No.ST/616/2011 of Rs. 42,72,807/- is for the period from October 2008 to February 2009 under Rule 5 of CCR 2004 read with Notfn 5/2006 CE (NT) dt. 14-03-2006. 3. The respondent-assessee had taken cenvat credit based on the invoices issued by the service providers and credit remained unutilized because the services cleared by the assessee for export without payment of excise duty in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit rules 2004 read with Notfn No.5/2006-CE (NT) dt. 14.3.2006 which provides for refund of cenvat credit which remains unutilized on account of exports. The original....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt which has been challenged before Hon'ble High Court [CMA under SR.No.47767/2011] which is still pending. He submits that non-taking of registration is not a mere technical lapse and in order to derive any substantive benefit of any Act/Rule, the person claiming such substantive benefit has to strictly follow the conditions and procedures prescribed therein. He stressed the point that refund of cenvat credit shall be allowed only in respect of the registered premises of the service providers from which the output services are exported is situated. He therefore prayed that impugned order may be set aside and the respective OIOs may be restored. 5. Shri T.R. Ramesh, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee submits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, registration under service tax legislation is required only for service providers who are liable to pay service tax and the respondent herein is predominantly engaged in the provision of export of service and therefore they are not liable to pay service tax and consequently not required to register with the department. The respondent has placed reliance on the judgement of Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs ST 2012 (27) STR 134. The Hon'ble High Court at para-7 of its order has held as follows :- "7. Insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition precedent for claimin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....they are eligible for refund of the unutilized credit which was accumulated prior to registration. 7. As regards the rejection of claims of Rs. 21,253/- and 773/- on the ground that amount claimed pertain to input services which were not utilized in the output service which is exported as no export of services had taken place after July 2008, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) at para 5.4 has held as under :- "I find that the appellant had not contested in these appeals for the meager amount rejected by the Lower Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the amount claimed pertain to input services which were not utilized in the output service which is exported. I find from the records that the appellant's company stopped operat....