CESTAT, CHENNAI BENCH
Commissioner of Service Tax, Service Tax Division II, Chennai
Versus
Sylla Synergy India Ltd.
FINAL ORDER NO. 897 OF 2012
Appeal No. ST/625 OF 2011
AUGUST 28, 2012
ORDER
1. Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order where the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim of the respondents on which credit availed prior to the Registration with the Department.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim for the period prior to the Registration of service tax paid by the respondents on the ground that the assessee entitled to refund claim of input service credit only for the period after registration. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower Appellate Authority relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Textech International (P) Ltd v. CST [2011] 33 STT 233 and allowed the refund claim. Revenue is not satisfied with the said decision, therefore, this appeal is filed before this Tribunal.
3. Therefore, ld. DR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of mPortal (India) Wireless Solutions (P.) Ltd v. CST [2010] 29 STT 43 (Bang.-Cestat) wherein the Tribunal held that prior to the Registration, Cenvat credit was not available and accordingly the refund is liable to be rejected.
4. Whereas the Ld. Consultant appearing for the respondents submits that the decision of the Tribunal in mPortal (India) Wireless Solutions (P.) Ltd (supra) relied by the ld. DR has been set aside by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court reported in mPortal (India) Wireless Solutions (P.) Ltd v. CST [2012] 34 STT 322/[2011] 16 taxann.com 353 and, inter alia, in CST v. D & B Transunion Analytic & Decision Services (P.) Ltd. [Final Order No. 802 of 2012, dated 16-7-2012) has allowed the refund claim.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Considering the fact that the decision relied upon by the ld. DR in the case of mPortal (India) Wireless Solutions (P.) Ltd (supra) has already been set aside by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and therefore, the issue in the matter is no longer res integra.
7. In view of the above observation, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
