TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mises of the Appellant. 3. I have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant and ld. Authorised Representative for the revenue and perused the records. The Appellants are engaged in providing information technology service and the registered address of the Appellant is at Bandra and they are registered with the Service Tax Department. They availed Cenvat credit on inputs, input services and capital goods during the period 2010-11 to 2013-14 under the provision of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The authorities below have disallowed the Cenvat Credit availed by the Appellant for the input service i.e. renting of immovable property service, on the ground that the invoices were issued in the name of the unregistered premises of the Appellant at Andheri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved to be disallowed in view of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4. It is not disputed that the appellants are having Service Tax Registration for a single premises i.e. their office at Bandra. However, they availed cenvat credit on input services viz., renting of immovable property service, pertaining to premises other than the registered premises i.e. for the premises at Andheri and New Delhi. It is also not the case of the Revenue that those two premises do not belong to the Appellant. The show cause notice issued to the Appellant did not dispute that the service in question is an input service which has been received, consumed and utilised by the appellants for providing taxable output service. It is the case of the Appellant tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pearing for both parties were unable to point out any provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Therefore, said finding recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside." 6. The aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble High Court has been followed by the Tribunal from time to time . The rejection of refund claim on the ground of non-registration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of export of service and therefore they are not liable to pay service tax and consequently not required to register with the department. The appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. ST - 2012 (27) S.T.R. 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 claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, learned counsel appearing for both parties were unable to point out any provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory and that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S.T.R. 134 (Kar.). The ruling of CCE v. Sutham Nylocots - 2014 (306) E.L.T. 255, relied upon by the Revenue, is not applicable to the facts of the present case in as much as it was a case of classification/clandestine removal and credit based on registration is not a prescribed condition in terms of the exemption notification would not automatically entitle Cenvat credit. Since, the ruling of the Madras High Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case and that the ruling of the Karnataka High Court is more akin to the facts of the present case, the refund of Cenvat credit on renting of immovable property is allowed, follow the ruling of the Karnataka High Court. 9. Accordingly, I pass the following order: (a)....