TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 979
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Department noticed that the appellant has filed a rebate claim on account of Export of Service for an amount of Rs. 88,49,479/- for the period April 2010 to September 2010 in terms of Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005. On verification of claim and supporting documents, the Sanctioning Authority noticed that during the period from 2006-07 to 2007-08, during which Cenvat Credit was availed, the assesse was neither registered with the Department nor had filed any returns and therefore in the absence of the same their co-relation/nexus with the output service could be established. The Refund Sanctioning Authority also noticed that as per Section 69 of Finance Act 1994, every person liable for pay service tax is required to apply for registration in form ST-1 within a period of 30 days from the date on which the service tax under Section 66 of Finance Act 1994 is levied and accordingly, the appellant should have obtained registration under Information Technology Software Services (ITSS) not later than 01.04.2006 to get the benefit under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 (CCR), whereas, they got themselves registered with the Department only on 25.06.2008. Therefore, an a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BAD] Further, he has also relied on certain judgments of Hon'ble High Courts of Madras, Allahabad and Karnataka as under: a. M/s. A.G.S. Health Private Limited Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai [2025 (10) TMI 879 - CESTAT CHENNAI] b. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus M/s. Visual Graphics Computing Services India Pvt Ltd [2018 (7) TMI 1394 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] c. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Versus BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Pvt Ltd. [2018 (6) TMI 676 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] d. COMMISSIONER, SERVICE TAX Versus PANGEA 3 LEGAL DATABASE SYSTEMS P. LTD. [2017 (2) TMI 1384 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] e. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate, Chennai Versus M/s. Rakindo Kovai Township Ltd. [2021 (3) TMI 130 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] f. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus M/s. Visual Graphics Computing Services India Pvt Ltd [2018 (7) TMI 1394 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] g. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Bangalore, Represented By Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax Bangalore Versus M/s. Huawei Technology India Pvt.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only rebate but they are also entitled for interest on the said delayed grant of rebate. He has relied on the judgment in the case of Spentex Industries Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2016 (343) ELT 928 (Tri-Del)]. 5. Learned AR on the other hand submitted that their contention that they are eligible for Cenvat Credit without getting registration with the Department solely based on the Mportal India Wireless Solutions P Ltd., supra, wherein, it is not sustainable as the said order of the Hon'ble High Court did not examined the certain legal provisions in Service Tax Act, Service Tax Rule, CCR and therefore the said order is per-in-curiaum. Moreover, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court allowed the Cenvat Credit based solely on the ground that both parties in the case were unable to point out any provision in law to the contrary and hence the said decision is not having a binding precedence. Moreover, the decision in the case of Mportal was accepted by the Department on monetary grounds. He also submits that as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd., reported in [2014 (11) TMI 1240 (SC)], as also in the case of State of U.P. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n as much as it has not examined various law points, as also, the legal provisions regulating availment of credit in terms of CCR and therefore the said judgment, especially keeping in view the Supreme Court judgment cited by him, is to be treated as per-in curiam. He has further submitted that the other judgments cited by the appellants are also primarily based on the Mportal judgment and therefore, if any judgment relied on a judgment, which is to be treated as per-in-curiam, then the other judgments are also to be treated as per-in-curiam. 9. We find that though in the identical factual matrix in the case of Mportal, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that credit availed prior to the date of registration is eligible and can be considered for granting a rebate, however, we also find that there is another judgment cited by the Learned AR, which has also been pronounced by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sutham Nylocots, supra. Therefore, in this case, different High Courts have taken different views. While one set of decision are clearly following the line taken by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Mportal, there is also differing judgment of Madras High Court i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to have a service tax registration before he can take credit, however, he cannot utilise it without getting registered and following relevant provision, rules etc. It is also obvious that prior to taking of registration, the person will not be maintaining any statutory record or following any statutory provisions. However, there is nothing on record which would show receiving certain input services, were going into the export of services cannot be accumulated or accounted for in their private record. It is also relevant that during that period they were only exporting the services and though leviable to Service Tax, they were not required to pay any service tax subjected to any fulfilment of certain conditions. It is not in dispute that they were not fulfilling conditions entitling them the benefit of export of service. Thus, in this factual matrix, they were not in a position to utilise any of this credit as they were not liable to pay any service tax. 11. We, therefore, find that in the facts of the case, the reliance placed by the appellant on various judgments including Mportal, supra, is correct in as much as there is no such statutory provision which disentitled them fro....