Order date – 09 September 2022

Facts – 

• The Appellant, M/s Selling Simplified India Private Limited, is engaged in rendering taxable services of business support to the following group companies i.e. Selling Simplified Group, Selling Simpliefied Inc, Selling Simplified Ltd. U.K. Three of the companies are located outside of India.
• The appellant is availing Cenvat credit of input services used to render the said output service as they are paying service tax on such input services.
• The appellant filed the refund claim on 22.12.2016 amounting to Rs.9,97,364/- under Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 issued under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
• Department observed that the appellant had centralized service tax registration for the premises at G-92, Basement, Kalkaji, Delhi but had claimed some input service credit for the services utilized at the premises located at A-22, Sector-64, Noida (UP), the unregistered premises.
• With these observations, the department formed an opinion that appellants should get registration for their Noida premises also.
• Accordingly, vide Show Cause Notice dated 04.03.2021 was issued in which the department proposed the rejection of the refund claim, which was confirmed by order dated 02.07.2021.
• Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal.

Issue – 

• Whether the authorities were justified in refusing to grant Cenvat credit on the ground that the service provider is not registered with the department?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that there is no rule which requires registration of each office/premise of the service provider in case the service provider has central registration. Even Form-A nowhere suggests that any such condition must be observed; also Rule 5 does not stipulate registration of premises as a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund.
• It is clear that the services in the present case amounts to export of service and relying on M/s. All Merchants Limited vs. CCE reported as long as the service recipient is located outside India and the benefit of services accrues outside India, the services provided by an Indian company would qualify as export. The situation gets further clarified from the department's own Circular No. 111/05/2009-S.T. dated 24.02.2009 wherein it has been clarified that the relevant factor is the location of the service receiver and not the place of performance.
• Also relying on the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore it was held that there is no need to establish a nexus between input services and output services at the time of filing of refund claim.
• Therefore, the appeal was allowed.