2017 (11) TMI 833

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....act service. Further the Commissioner(Appeals) has also held that the respondents are eligible for refund on input service invoices addressed to premises other than the registered premises. The issue involved in both the appeals is identical and hence they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondent is registered as service provider for various categories of services such as Business Support Services and Works Contract Service. The respondent has filed a refund claim on 27/12/2012 as per Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006, for refund of Rs. 45,79,412/- on unutilised CENVAT credit of service tax said to have been paid by them, on the input services availed by them for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e premises other than the premises registered is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPortal (India) Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2012(27) STR 134 (Kar.)] wherein the Karnataka High Court has held that for availing the CNEVAT credit on input services, registration is not mandatory. He further submitted that the judgment in the case of mPortal (India) Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has been accepted by the Department on monetary limit and not on merits. He also submitted that similar issues are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CST, Noida Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [20....