2018 (7) TMI 1394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ai are the provider of services under the category of Information Technology Software Service.  Appellant had filed refund claim of Rs. 2,50,07,166/-, for the period April 2012 to June 2012, under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Original Authority rejected part of the refund claim of Rs. 1,72,05,940/- on the ground of non-registration of premises. 3. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals), vide, impugned order, dated 10/6/2016, allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, department has filed an appeal, before the CESTAT, challenging the order of the Commissioner of Appeals.  Vide, Final Order No.42324/2017, dated 11/10/2017, CESTAT, Madras, dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, relying on the following judgments. (i). Scioinsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the date of their being registered with service tax department. According to her, the issue involved in this appeal, is not a mere technical lapse. 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 stipulated. CESTAT, Madras, has failed to consider the safeguards and conditions stipulated in Appendix to Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT), dated 14/3/2006 {condition N0.3(b)} wherein, it is stated that refund of CENVAT credit shall be allowed only in respect of the registered premises of the service provider from where the output services are exported. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that a Larger Bench of CESTAT, N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fund, 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 appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her the decision of CESTAT i.e. Respondent No.1 in allowing refund of Cenvat credit even without registration is correct? 2. Whether CESTAT i.e. Respondent No.1 is correct in not considering the safe guards, conditions and limitations as stipulated in the Appendix to Notification No.05/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006? 3. Whether CESTAT i.e.Respondent No.1 is correct in applying the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s.mPortal Wireless Solutions Private Limited when the said judgment was not accepted on merits but due to low revenue effects?" 12. After considering the provisions, relevant notifications and decisions in M/s.mPortal India Wireless Solutions Private Limited V. Commis....