Case Law Details
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Vs M/s. Pay Pal India Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether denial of a refund of Cenvat credit for mere non-registration of Premises is justified in law?
High Court states that, the relevant rules, notifications and earlier judgments of the Coordinate Bench having been considered while allowing the appeal filed by the Assessee, the learned Tribunal held that refund claimed by the Assessee on Cenvat Credit cannot be disallowed merely because the premises in question was not registered with the Revenue Department. It is brought to our notice that the Assessee had applied for such registration and the same was granted by the Department on 1.6.2009 and the present controversy pertains to the period prior to 01.06.2009, the date of grant of registration. HC do not find any question of law to be arising in the present appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The Court was held by Video Conference, as per the Resolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respective residence and the counsel, staff of the Court appearing from their respective residences.
2. Heard Mr.K.S.Ramasay for the appellant and Mr.Prasad Paranjape for the respondent/Assessee.
3. The Revenue Department has challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 14.02.2019, by which the learned Tribunal has held that the refund of the Cenvat credit claimed by the Assessee under Rule 5 of CCR Rules, 2004, cannot be denied to the Assessee merely because the premises in question from where the services in question were exported, were not registered with the Revenue Department. The learned Tribunal while saying so, has followed the earlier decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Pvt. Ltd (2018- TIOL -1126-HC-MAD-ST), and M/s. Scioninspire Consulting Services India Pvt. Ltd. and anr. (2017-TIOL-798-HC-MAD-ST).
4. Paragraph No.4 of the order of the learned Tribunal is quoted below for ready reference :
4. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute has been now decided in favour of the respondents vide case laws relied upon by the Ld. Advocate. We find that in a recent decision in BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Pvt. Ltd, 2018- TIOL -1126-HC-MAD-ST, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, has interalia held that Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, does not stipulate registration of premises as a necessary pre-requisite for claiming a refund. The Hon’ble High Court has reiterated their earlier decision in M/s. Scion Inspire Consulting Services India Pvt. Ltd. and another – 2017-TIOL798-HC-MAD-ST. Viewed in this light, no merit is find in the appeal of the department, for which
reason the appeal is dismissed.
5. The learned counsel for the Revenue Department Mr.R.S.Ramasamy submitted that the earlier judgments of the Court has not been accepted by the Revenue Department. However, appeals against those judgments were not filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on account of their low tax effect.
6. The learned counsel for the Assessee supported the order of the learned Tribunal and urged before us that since the controversy is covered by the earlier judgments of Division Bench of this Court, there is no reason to take a different view of the matter and the present appeal filed by the Revenue has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, we are of the clear opinion that there is no merit in the present appeal filed by the Revenue Department and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. The relevant rules, notifications and earlier judgments of the Coordinate Bench having been considered while allowing the appeal filed by the Assessee, the learned Tribunal held that refund claimed by the Assessee on Cenvat Credit cannot be disallowed merely because the premises in question was not registered with the Revenue Department. It is brought to our notice that the Assessee had applied for such registration and the same was granted by the Department on 1.6.2009 and the present controversy pertains to the period prior to 01.06.2009, the date of grant of registration.
8. We cannot appreciate the contention of the Revenue that merely because the Department has not accepted the earlier Division Bench judgments of this Court, and without filing any appeal in an appropriate manner, the present appeal on the same ground cannot be entertained. The Revenue Department is bound by the judgments of this Court unless they are set aside by higher Courts in appropriate proceedings. It is also not the case of the Department that any subsequent amendment in law has changed the legal position and therefore the earlier judgments cannot be followed by this Bench.
10. In view of this, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Revenue and we do not find any question of law to be arising in the present appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Author Bio
