C.C. & C.E. & S.T.- Noida vs Curadevpharma P Ltd

(Arising out of OIA No. NOI-EXCUS-000-APPL-263-13-14 dated 26.12.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

C.C. & C.E. & S.T.- Noida Appellant

Vs.

Curadevpharma P Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri R.K. Gupta, DR

Present for the Respondent: Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate

Coram: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Final Order No.52376/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

Revenue is in appeal challenging the impugned order which allowed the refund claim of the respondent.

2. The issue involved in this case is that the respondents who is 100% EOU whether eligible for refund claim of unutilized Cenvat credit pertaining to a period prior to the date of taking registration of Service Tax.

3. The ld. DR reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that the respondents are not entitled to refund for a period prior to taking registration. Refund claim is made for the period April, 2011 to December, 2011 whereas the respondent has taken registration of Service Tax only on 27/3/2012. That therefore they are not eligible for refund, as they are not registered during the relevant period.

4. The ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent drew our attention to the discussion made by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondent, a 100% EOU is already registered to the Excise Department w.e.f. 26/8/2010. She also relied upon the decision of Honble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2012 (27) S.T.R. 134 (Kar.) which held that registration with department is not a pre-requisite for claiming the refund of credit. I find that the facts of the case are identical with the instant case. Applying the ratio in the above judgment, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is dismissed.

(Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

K. Gupta

2