TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , For the Appellant None, For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S. GARG These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the common impugned order dt. 04/11/2016 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has allowed the refund on certain input services by holding the same as input services and denied refund in respect of certain services viz. photography services and works contract service. Further the Commissioner(Appeals) has also held that the respondents are eligible for refund on input service invoices addressed to premises other than the registered premises. The issue involved in both the appeals is identical and hence they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be set aside. The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the refund on input service invoices. Aggrieved by this findings, the Revenue has filed these two appeals. 3. Heard the learned AR. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. Hence I proceed to decide the appeals with the help of learned AR and perusal of records. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue has submitted that the impugned order allowing refund on input service invoices addressed to the premises other than the premises registered is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPortal (India) Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2012(27) STR 134 (Kar.)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore reported -2012(27) STR 134 (Kar) wherein it is held that 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 existent in law . Therefore, in view of the said judgment, I hold that reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
