Bechtel India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chandigarh)
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the registration of the premises is not a pre-condition for availment of cenvat credit and thereof consequently the refund.
Facts- The appellant is registered with Service Tax Division for providing services under the category of consulting Engineer’s Service. The appellant filed 12 refund claims for unutilized CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.3.2006. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order sanctioned a refund amount of Rs. 4,73,75,153/- and rejected the amount of Rs. 1,56,34,321/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order has upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, the present appeal.
Conclusion- Held that the Hon’ble High Court after considering the various rules and the Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.3.2006 has come to the conclusion that registration of the premises is not a pre-condition for grant of refund.
Held that the registration of the premises is not a pre-condition for availment of cenvat credit and consequently the refund.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHANDIGARH ORDER
The Appellant has filed the present appeal against Order-In-Appeal No. 191/BK/GGN/2011 dated 26.05.2011, whereby the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Refund Order dated 09.07.2010 passed by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax (Audit), thereby confirming the rejection of refund of INR 1,56,34,321/- to the Appellant for the period April 2008 to March 2009.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Bechtel India Private Ltd is registered with Service Tax Division- III Gurgaon Vide Service Tax Registration No. CE-Consul Eng/ Delhi III/BIPL/14/98 dated 24.8.98 for providing services under the category of consulting Engineer’s Service. The appellant filed 12 refund claims for unutilized CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.3.2006. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order sanctioned a refund amount of Rs. 4,73,75,153/- and rejected the amount of Rs. 1,56,34,321/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order has upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the refund with regard to input services used for export of service is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the definition of ‘Input Service’ and export of service rules and without considering the precedent decisions on the same issue.
5. Ld. Counsel has given in tabular form the various grounds of rejection of the refund amount and the appellant’s submissions against refund rejection, substantiated by case laws which are reproduced herein below:
