TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority sanctioned refund of Rs. 37,25,023/- and rejected the remaining amount on the ground of Non-Registration of premises and ineligible CENVAT credit on Car parking charges. The adjudicating authority rejected refund on CENVAT credit, on the following services, for the reasons stated, in the following Table, in Order-in-Original No.05/2016 dated 27.01.2016. S.No. Refund of CENVAT credit claimed on Rejected amount (Rs.) Reasons for rejection 01. Car Parking Charges 1557 Not an input service as per Rule 2(I) of CENVAT credit Rules 02. Challan for payment under reverse charges not submitted 17072 03 Service Tax amount not mentioned in invoices 60486 04. Unregistered premises at Principal Tower, College Road, Chennai 17721 The premises were not registered. 05. Services received at 4th and 5th Floor of Menon Eternity, New Door No.165, St.Mary's Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-18. 1668253 The premises were not registered at the time of export but subsequently o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 03. Services received at 4th and 5th Floor of Menon Eternity, New Door No.165, St.Mary's Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-18 1668253 1596745 04. Services received at International Tech Park Unit No.1 to 4, 11th Floor Taramani Chennai. 1357366 1241139 4.2 In so far as SI.No.3 and 4 of the above table are concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that Registration is not mandatory to take credit and to claim refund, and held that non-registration of premises cannot be a ground to reject refund claim. Accordingly, he set aside the impugned order to the extent of rejection of the portion of the refund claim, done on the ground of Non-registration, on the services pertaining to the respondent premises of the 4th and 5th Floor (Menon Eternity) and the premises at Taramani, considering the fact that Registration was obtained subsequently for the above premises. The Commissioner (Appeals) further observed that in respect of the premises at Mumbai and at College Road, Chennai, the respondent had not produced any Registration Certificate for these premises. Hence, upheld disallowance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartment." 6. Final order of CESTAT, Madras, No.40778 of 2017 dated 22.05.2017, is assailed on the following substantial questions of law :- "1. Whether the decision of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (CESTAT for Short) in Allowing refund of Cenvat credit even without registration is correct? 2. Whether CESTAT is erred in not considering the safeguards, conditions and limitations as stipulated in the Appendix to the Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT), dated 18.06.2016." 7. Supporting the prayer, Ms.Aparna Nandakumar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that registration is an act by which every manufacturer/assessee/service provider, comes under the ambit of Central Excise Act, 1944 / Finance Act, 1994. In order to avail any substantive benefit, like, CENVAT Credit available under the statute, registration of premises from which the taxable service is rendered is a pre-requisite. Therefore, when registration has not been done as per Section 69 of the Act, the respondent is not entitled for refund of CENVAT read with rule 4(1) of the Rules which render them ineligible far CENVAT credit an input services accumu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant submitted that CESTAT, Madras, erred by stating that the respondent was entitled to credit and refund, in view of non-taxability of export service. This is for the reason that Rule 4 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 permitted a service provider to export services, without payment of service tax, and there is liability to pay service tax, on export of service, but for this rule. Hence, for export of service by a service provider, registration is a sine qua non for procedural and substantive compliance. The judgment of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai -III Vs. M/s Scioinspire Consulting Services (India) P Ltd., applied by CESTAT, Madras, for deciding the appeal in favour of the respondent, was accepted by the department due to monetary limit and not on merits, and therefore, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ratio of the said judgment, should not have been taken as a binding precedent, in view of Section 35R (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The subsequent decision of CESTAT, Madras, vide FO No. 42500/2016 dated 20/12/2016 in the case of the same party viz., M/s Scioinspire C....