M/S. Affiliated Computer vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationService Tax Appeal No. 1018 of 2011-Ex (SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Registration with the department is not a precondition for availing cenvat credit on input services; the only requirement is that the assessee be registered at the time of filing the refund claim under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004. Where that condition is met, a refund claim cannot be denied merely because the assessee was unregistered when the input service credit was availed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 14/ST/Appeal/NOIDA/ 2011 dated 7/02/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), NOIDA]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should 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 Departmental authorities?
M/s. Affiliated Computer Appellants
Services of India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
NOIDA
Appearance:
Shri Gajender Maheshwari, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri G R Singh, AR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing /decision: 18.06.2015
ORDER NO. FO/ 52013 /2015-Ex(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal :
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order where the refund claim under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 has been denied to them on the premise that during the period when the appellant availed input service credit, the appellant was not registered with the department.
2. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions.
3. I find that in this case at the time of filing of refund claim, the appellant was registered and as per the decision of High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPORTAL India Wireless Solutions P Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore [2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar)], the issue has been settled by Honble High Court holding that Registration with the department is not a pre-requisite condition for claiming the credit. Only condition is that at the time of filing of refund claim, the appellant should be registered. As the issue has been settled by Honble Karanataka High Court, in the case of mPORTAL India Wireless Solutions P Ltd. (supra), therefore, same is no more res integra. In these circumstances, I hold that appellant was not required to have registered with the department at the time of availing cenvat credit on the input service. It is only the condition at the time of filing of refund claim, at which time the appellant was registered. In these circumstances, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) ss Member(Judicial)
1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free