TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Rony O. John, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Satya Pal, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER Per Devender Singh The appellants are in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal Nos.436-438/BK/GGN/2010 dated 19.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon. 2. The facts in all the three appeals are identical. The adjudicating authority has rejected the request of the appellants for grant of refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit for three quarters viz July 2007 to September 2007, October 2007 to December 2007 and January 2008 to March 2008. All refunds have been claimed under Notification No.5/2006-CE (N.T.) dated 14.03.2006. The ground for reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laws of this Tribunal, wherein refund of cenvat credit of service tax has been allowed holding that registration with the department was not pre-requisite for grant of refund of Cenvat Credit:- (i) Dorling Kindersley (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE ST, Noida - 2015 (40) S.T.R. 598 (Tri. Del.) (ii) ML Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi - Appeal No. ST/57015/2013-ST[SM] in CESTAT, New Delhi (iii) Broadcom India Research Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 79 (Tri. Bang.) (iv) KLA Tencor Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Chennai-III - 2016 (45) S.T.R. 242 (Tri. Chenn.) 4. Ld. A.R. appearing for the Revenue referred to the Notification 5/2006-CE(NT) and stated that condition no. 3 of the notification refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istration 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. The above judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court on the same issue has been followed by the Tribunal in the following cases: (i) Dorling Kindersley (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) (ii) ML Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) (iii) Broadcom India Research Pvt. Ltd. (supra) (iv) KLA Tencor Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) 7. In view of the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
