TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Member Shri Parasiva Murthy, AR For the appellant None For the respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The Revenue has filed these two appeals against the impugned order dated 27.11.2015 whereby the Commissioner (A) has disposed of five appeals. Out of these five appeals, these two appeals have been filed by the Revenue. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is common, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is registered with the service tax department for providing taxable services under the category of Information Technology Software Services (ITSS). The assessee filed these five refund claims as shown in the table below und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide his Order-in-Original dated 27.4.2011 by rejecting the refund claim in toto on the ground that the unit was not registered for the claimed period. The assessee got the registration on 5.2.2009 which shows that the activity of export of services have not been undertaken in the registered premises. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who held that the issue of non-registration cannot be a ground for rejecting refund claim relying upon the decision in the case of M/s. mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore: 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.) wherein it has been held that registration with the department is not a pre-requisite for the assessee for claiming refund of CENVAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST: 2012 (27) STR 134. In this regard, it is pertinent to reproduce relevant findings of the Commissioner (A) which is contained in para 10 of the impugned order. Para 10 is reproduced herein below: 10. As regards the issue that since service tax registration on ITSS is t~: only on 05-02-2009, refund is therefore not eligible for the period prior obtaining registration, I find that this issue stands settled by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CST, Bangalore 2012(27) STIR 134 (Kar.) , which has held insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition preced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input services or the business premises as is the case here, is not justified. However, following the ratio of the judgment, this does not automatically entitle a claimant (in this case the appellant) to the refund of the said cenvat credit. The appellant will have to prove before the original adjudicating authorities that service tax has indeed been paid on these input services. In view of the judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, which has been relied upon by the Commissioner (A), I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order which needs interference by this Tribunal. Therefore, I uphold the impugned order and dismiss both the appeals of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
