Case Law Details
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Saipem India Projects Limited (CESTAT Chennai)
Conclusion: Whether it be registration or centralized registration, when there was no mandatory provision in the Rules regarding registration, the Cenvat Credit could not be denied, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which was not existence in law.
Held: M/s. Saipem India Projects Limited, the respondent herein, were holders of Service Tax Registration under the category of Consulting Engineer Service, Commercial Training and Coaching, Business Support Service and Information Technology Software Service. It was mainly engaged in providing engineering and allied services in relation to projects in oil and gas, petrochemicals and refineries, both domestic and international. The company had filed three refund claims: Rs.66,57,953/- for the period from July 2009 to September 2009, Rs.85,27,600/- for the period from October 2009 to December 2009 and Rs.40,85,690/- for the period from January 2010 to March 2010, relating to accumulated input credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with clause 2(b) of the appendix to Notification No. 05/2006-C.E.(N.T.) dated 14.03.2006. The Department entertained the view that the respondent’s claims were to be restricted due to the refund was claimed on the invoices pertaining to the respondent’s Cathedral Road branch which were issued prior to centralized registration; refund was required to be sanctioned based on the formula given under the Notification No. 05/2006-C.E.(N.T.) dated 14.03.2006; refund in respect of certain input services was not eligible since the said services were not eligible input services. It was held that insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit was concerned, in the absence of a statutory provision which prescribed that registration was mandatory and that if such a registration was not made the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which was not existence in law. Whether it be registration or centralized registration, when there was no mandatory provision in the Rules regarding registration, the Cenvat Credit could not be denied.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
The Commissioner of Service Tax, Newry Towers, Anna Nagar, Chennai, has filed these appeals against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 114 & 115/2013 (M-ST) dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai, who allowed the two appeals filed by M/s. Saipem India Projects Ltd. against the Orders-inOriginal Nos. 121/2010 (R) and 125/2010 (R) both dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Service Tax-II Division, Chennai disallowing a part of the refund applications filed in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as per the table given below: –
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
