Refund of CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied Merely for Non-Registration of Unit: CESTAT [Read Order]
The tribunal noted that registration was not a precondition for claiming such refund and relied on the Allahabad High Court's ruling in CST, Noida vs. Atrenta India Pvt. Ltd.
![Refund of CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied Merely for Non-Registration of Unit: CESTAT [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/12/2043008-cenvat-credit-cestat-orders-demand-exempted-and-dutiable-goods-taxscan.webp "Refund of CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied Merely for Non-Registration of Unit: CESTAT [Read Order]")
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT )held that refund of CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, cannot be denied merely due to non-registration of the unit. Guardian India Operations Pvt Ltd,appellant-assessee,was a 100% EOU providing IT Software Services and Business Auxiliary Services to clients outside...
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT )held that refund of CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, cannot be denied merely due to non-registration of the unit.
Guardian India Operations Pvt Ltd,appellant-assessee,was a 100% EOU providing IT Software Services and Business Auxiliary Services to clients outside India. While offering these services from its Gurugram office, it received various input services like property rent, manpower supply, telecom, repair, and facility management, on which it paid service tax.
The UAE Tax Law Is Evolving — Stay Ahead Before Clients Find Someone Who Already Is - Register Now
For the period October 2016 to June 2017, the appellant filed ST-3 returns and accumulated unutilized Cenvat credit of ₹3,00,68,912/-. A refund claim for the same was filed on 01.03.2018 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE. The original authority rejected the entire claim through an order dated 30.01.2019.
The assessee challenged this before the Commissioner (Appeals), who also rejected the refund claim of ₹93,892. The claim related to the period from June to November 2016, before the ST-2 certificate was issued, when no output services were provided.
The assessee aggrieved by the order appealed before the tribunal.
The assessee counsel argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly rejected the refund claim of ₹93,892 for invoices raised before the ST-2 certificate was issued. He stated that registration was not a condition for claiming refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He also pointed out that the services were received and service tax was paid. He relied on decisions in mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Atrenta India Pvt. Ltd. to support the claim.
The two member bench comprising S.S Garg (Judicial Member) and P.Anjani Kumar( Technical Member) reviewed the submissions from both sides and examined the records. It held that the refund claim of ₹93,892 could not be denied merely on the ground of non-registration of the unit, relying on the Allahabad High Court’s decision in CST, Noida vs. Atrenta India Pvt. Ltd.
In short,the tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
