TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts of the case are that the Appellant is an 100% export-oriented unit engaged in providing world class solutions (medical billing, patient demographics, insurance verification, medical coding, payment posting, accounts receivables) to a wide range of health care providers across multiple specialties within the United States. As the services rendered by the Appellant to the foreign clients qualify as export of service as per Rule 4 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005, no service tax was payable by the Appellant on its output services. 2.2 Since the Appellant was not liable to pay any Service tax, they did not get themselves registered with the Service tax Department. However, when, the pilot projects of the Appellant were successf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the original authority and dismissed the appeal on the following grounds: - i. In terms of Section 69 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 ("STR" for short) every service provider of a taxable service is required to take registration with jurisdictional Central Excise Office. ii. Rule 3 of CCR states as "a manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of taxable service shall be allowed to take credit ----". Thus, a taxable service provider has to get himself registered under the provisions of Service Tax to take CENVAT Credit. iii. The output services should be exported only from the registered premises of the exporter and the refund claim has to be filed with the jurisdicti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... longer res integra and has been settled in favour of the appellant in a number of cases of the Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal Chennai:- i. Mportal India Wireless Solutions Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, 2012 (27) S.T.R. (Kar.) ii. Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai v. CESTAT, Chennai and M/s. Scionspire Consulting Services (India) Private Limited, Chennai, 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 45 (Mad.) iii. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Private Limited, 2018 (2) TMI 1416-Madras High Court. iv. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai v. Pay Pal India Private Limited, 2020 (7) TMI 321- Madras High Court. v. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of non-registration of the premises. 6.6 Further the Ld. Advocate submitted that a bare perusal of the Refund Notification would show that it only sets out the procedure for claiming refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit and nowhere prohibits the grant of Cenvat Credit on account of non-registration of the premises. In this regard, she relied on the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai v. CESTAT, Chennai and M/s. Scionspire Consulting Service (India) Private Limited, Chennai, [2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 45 (Mad.)]. 7. The Ld. A.R. Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram appeared for the Revenue and reiterated the findings of the original authority as well as the findings in the impugned order. She reiterated that as per 3(b) of Appendix 2 of Not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd prior to registration. The relevant portion of the above decision is extracted below: - "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 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 ....