The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that there is no mandate under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) that registration should be condition for refund of accumulated credit.
In the appeal M/s. Saipem India Projects Limited, the respondent herein, are holders of Service Tax Registration under the category of Consulting Engineer Service, Commercial Training and Coaching, Business Support Service and Information Technology Software Service. The respondent is mainly engaged in providing engineering and allied services in relation to projects in oil and gas, petrochemicals and refineries, both domestic and international.
The issue is relating to refund of Cenvat Credit accumulated in respect of the respondent’s Cathedral Road Branch premises prior to centralized registration.
The Department entertained the view that the respondent’s claims were to be restricted due to the refund was claimed on the invoices pertaining to the respondent’s Cathedral Road branch which were issued prior to centralized registration.
The Madras High Court in the cases of Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Chennai v. BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Pvt. Ltd and Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Chennai v. Pay Pal India Pvt. Ltd, held that Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has not mandated registration as a condition for refund of accumulated credit.
In M/s. mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore, it was held that “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.”
A Two-Member Bench of the Tribunal comprising P Dinesha, Judicial Member and Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member held that “Whether it be registration or centralized registration, when there is no mandatory provision in the Rules regarding registration, the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
