Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

August 2011

(2011) 22 STR 529 (Tri.-Chennai) — Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai v. E-Care India Pvt. Ltd.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit in relation to export of services — Refund denied on the ground that the claim pertained to period prior to registration — Lower Appellate Authority held that non-registration not a ground for rejection of refund claim — Appeals rejected.

Facts:
The respondents claimed refund of unutilised credit of service tax in relation to export of services on the basis of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as laid out in the Notification No. 23/2004. The claim was rejected on the following grounds:

The respondent took registration later on;

The refund claim pertained to the period prior to the date of registration.

The lower Appellate Authority set aside the order of the original authority on the ground that registration is merely required for the purpose of maintenance of accounts and that non-registration cannot be the ground for enforcing a demand or denying a refund.

Held:
The Tribunal held that the relevant rules required only those assessees to take registration who are required to pay service tax. The respondents were not liable to pay service tax and hence, the order passed by the Appellate Authority did not require interference.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Companies (Director Identification Number) Amendment Rules, 2011.

Improving service delivery time of approval of company’s registration and critical services (Registration in 24 hours)