M/S. Scientific Publishing Services ... vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.111/2010 [M-ST], dated 02.06.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai ]

M/s. SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING SERVICES (P) LTD. APPELLANT

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI RESPONDENT

Appearance:

For the Appellant Ms. K. Ramya, Adv.

For the Respondent Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR)

CORAM:

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member

Date of hearing/decision 13-07-2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 40876 / 2015

There are two disputes in this appeal. That is patently clear from para 5 of the appellate order. So far as the first dispute of denial of refund of the service tax paid during the pre-registration period is concerned, there appears no legislative mandate for such denial as has been observed by Honble High Court Karnataka in para 7. The said para is reproduced for convenience of reading:-

7.?Insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, learned counsel appearing for both parties were unable to point out any provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Therefore, said finding recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside.

In view of the decision of the Honble High Court of Karnataka as above, appellant is entitled to the Cenvat credit of the services availed prior to registration and entitled to the refund thereof in view of no taxability due to export of services.

2. So far as second issue of refund is concerned, that relates to non-establishment of nexus between input service and output service. Record reveals that there is no evidence placed before the Adjudicating authority to consider nor any justification was shown by him. Therefore, this aspect is remanded to Adjudicating authority to examine the evidence if any that may be adduced by the appellant in respect of its claim. The authority shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing and shall pass appropriate order. Appeal is partly allowed and partly remanded to the Adjudicating authority.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

ksr 21-07-2015

DRAFT Remarks

I II III

Date of dictation 13.07.2015

Draft Order - Date of typing

Fair Order Typing 21.07.2015

Date of number and date of dispatch

2 ST/00537/2010