Page 48 - GSTL_20th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 3

262 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
Tax Department at relevant time, impugned order of Tribunal which has fol-
lowed law laid down above, sustainable - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
[paras 7, 8, 9]
Precedent - Binding nature - Merely because Department had not
accepted High Court order but could not file appeal due to low amount in-
volved, does not mean that said order has lost precedence value - Judgments of
High Court are binding on Department unless stayed or set aside by Apex
Court or change in law after such judgment. [para 8]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Pvt. Ltd.
— 2018-TIOL-1126-HC-MAD-ST — Relied on ............................................................... [Paras 3, 5, 6, 8]
Commissioner v. CESTAT — 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 45 (Mad.) — Relied on ................................ [Paras 3, 5, 6, 8]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri K.S. Ramasamy, for the Appellant.
S/Shri Prasad Paranjape for S. Muthu Venkata-
raman, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Vineet Kothari, J.]. - The Court was held by Video Confer-
ence, as per the Resolution of the Full Court dated 3 July, 2020, by Judges at their
respective residence and the counsel, staff of the Court appearing from their re-
spective residences.
2. Heard Mr. K.S. Ramasay for the appellant and Mr. Prasad Paranjape
for the respondent/Assessee.
3. The Revenue Department has challenged the order of the Tribunal
dated 14-2-2019, by which the Learned Tribunal has held that the refund of the
Cenvat credit claimed by the Assessee under Rule 5 of CCR Rules, 2004, cannot
be denied to the Assessee merely because the premises in question from where
the services in question were exported, were not registered with the Revenue
Department. The Learned Tribunal while saying so, has followed the earlier de-
cisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of BNP Paribas Sundaram
Global Securities Operations Pvt. Ltd. (2018-TIOL-1126-HC-MAD-ST), and M/s.
Scioninspire Consulting Services India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (2017-TIOL-798-HC-MAD-
ST = 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 45 (Mad.).
4. Paragraph No. 4 of the order of the Learned Tribunal is quoted be-
low for ready reference :
4. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute has
been now decided in favour of the respondents vide case laws relied upon
by the Ld. Advocate. We find that in a recent decision in BNP Paribas
Sundaram Global Securities Operations Pvt. Ltd., 2018-TIOL-1126-HC-MAD-
ST, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, has inter alia held that Rule 5 of
CCR, 2004, does not stipulate registration of premises as a necessary pre-
requisite for claiming a refund. The Hon’ble High Court has reiterated their
earlier decision in M/s. Scion Inspire Consulting Services India Pvt. Ltd. and an-
other - 2017-TIOL-798-HC-MAD-ST = 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 45 (Mad.). Viewed in
this light, no merit is find in the appeal of the department, for which reason
the appeal is dismissed.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Revenue Department Mr. R.S. Rama-
samy submitted that the earlier judgments of the Court has not been accepted by
the Revenue Department. However, appeals against those judgments were not
filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on account of their low tax effect.
GST LAW TIMES  20th August 2020  48