SHARE

| Dec-09-2021

Registration is not a requirement for filling refund claim

The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“CESTAT”) in the matter of M/s Blue River Capital India Advisory Services LLP v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East [Final Order No. A/87046-87047/2021 dated November 03, 2021], held that registration with the department is not a prerequisite to claim Service tax refund. Further, directed that the assessee is entitled to get the refunds accordingly along with applicable interest.

M/s Blue River Capital India Advisory Services LLP (“the Appellant”) filed the current appeal being aggrieved of the Order-in-Appeal dated August 27, 2020 (“OIO”) passed by the Commissioner CGST & Central Excise (Appeals) in which the refund claim of the Appellant was rejected on the ground that Appellant did not avail registration with department for the period during which invoices were raised. The Appellant has assailed the rejection of refund claim which were rejected by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) including the rejection claim for Rs. 7,39,219/- for the period from October, 2009 to March, 2010 and April 2010 to September.

The Appellant with reference to the leading case MPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.)] tried to justify that registration with the department is not a prerequisite to claim refund.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai relied upon the case of MPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. supra in which it was held that registration is not a requirement for filing refund claim. Further, ruled that it is revealed from case record and admitted by both the parties that Appellant got registered with retrospective effect from August 11, 2009 and the first refund application was filed on August 30, 2009 i.e. after the registration was completed. It is therefore immaterial to examine the date of invoices if raised before the registration date as there is no such stipulation or conditionality in Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated January 19, 2010.

Further, the CESTAT directed that the Appellant is entitled to get the refunds accordingly and directed the department to pay the same along with applicable interest within a period of three months from communication of this order.

(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.

Similar reads

EOU not entitled to claim refund of TED on its own, may avail of the entitlements of DTA supplier specified in FTP

The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sandoz Private Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2020 dated January 4, 2020] upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that Export

Dec-09-2021

Read More

Adoption of ICT and integration of LIMBS with CESTAT, ITAT and other Tribunals to reduce delay in litigation management

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.C.E. AND S.T., Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd. Civil Appeal No(s).674/2021 dated November 29, 2021] issued directives for the adoption

Dec-09-2021

Read More

Where two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible then the construction which favours the assessee must be adopted

The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (“CESTAT”) in the matter of John’s Cashew Company v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [Final Order 20792 /2021 dated October

Dec-09-2021

Read More

Penalty demand and proposal of confiscation cannot be separated from Customs duty demand

The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (“CESTAT”) in the matter of M/s. Dhiren Enterprise v. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai [Final Order

Dec-09-2021

Read More

No violation of procedure under Foreign Trade Policy if goods imported for personal use against Bill of Entry without having IEC

The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“CESTAT”) in the matter of Mr. Subodh Menon v. Commissioner of Customs, ACC Mumbai [Final Order No. A/87045/2021 dated November

Dec-09-2021

Read More