Registration Of Premises Not A Necessary Prerequisite For Claiming A Refund Under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTAT
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the registration of premises is a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) has observed that service providers are entitled to a refund under rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when the output service...
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the registration of premises is a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) has observed that service providers are entitled to a refund under rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when the output service is exported.
The appellant is engaged in rendering taxable services of business support to the following group companies, i.e., Selling Simplified Group, Selling Simplified Inc, Selling Simplified Ltd., U.K. Three of the companies are located outside of India. The appellant is availing Cenvat credit for input services used to render the said output service as they are paying service tax on such input services. On 22.12.2016, the appellant filed a refund claim for Rs.9,97,364 under Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012, issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, along with several documents.
The department observed that the appellant had centralised service tax registration for the premises but had claimed some input service credit for the services utilised at the unregistered premises. Some export invoices were also raised from the unregistered premises. With these observations, the department formed the opinion that the appellants should get registration for their Noida premises also. The department issued a "Show Cause Notice" proposing the rejection of the refund claim.
The appellant contended that the export invoices were issued by the appellant from an address that is not part of the centralised registration. The address mentioned in the invoices is Noida; hence, the commissionerate does not have jurisdiction to decide the refund. The Appellant and the group companies to whom the Appellant had provided business support services are simply the establishments of a single individual.
The CESTAT held that the show cause notice is a foundation on which the department has to build its case. Thus, it should be specific and contain all relevant details so that an assessee is able to give a reply to specific allegations in the show cause notice. Since the issue of jurisdiction was not specifically taken in the show cause notice, the adjudication on this point against the assessee is not sustainable. The appellant, since admittedly, has centralised registration in terms of subclause (2) and (3) of Rule 4, and the Noida unit was not required to be registered.
Case Title: M/s. Selling Simplified India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST, East Delhi
Citation: Service Tax Appeal No. 51165 of 2022 [SM]
Date: 09.09.2022
Counsel For Appellant: Advocate Vipin Upadhyay, Rochit Abhishek,
Counsel For Respondent: Authorised Representative Ishwar Charan