Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Limited (CESTAT Chennai)
In a recent judgment passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chennai, it was ruled that CENVAT credit is allowable even if the premises from which the service is exported are not registered under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. This case, Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Limited, sets a precedent for future tax and legal proceedings in this context.
The Aricent Technologies case centered around the company’s request for a refund of unutilized input service tax credit. The revenue department opposed this refund on the grounds that the premises from where the services were exported were not registered with the Service Tax Department as per Notification No. 05/2006-Central Excise (N.T.). However, CESTAT upheld the appeal, referencing prior judgments that confirmed the right of service exporters to claim CENVAT credit, even without premises registration.
The decision underscores the principle that CENVAT credit should not be denied simply because the premises are not registered. This key aspect of the ruling aligns with previous decisions on the same issue from various High Courts, including the jurisdictional High Court of Madras. The ruling supports the broader interpretation of the CENVAT Credit Rules, promoting business-friendly tax practices and the rights of service exporters.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 102/2013 (MST) dated 19.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai whereby the first appellate authority, having set aside the Order-in-Original No. 51/2009 (R) dated 31.12.2009, directed the grant of refund of unutilized input service credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Ld. Superintendent appearing for the appellant, has contended as under: –
