By the Court.—This appeal has arisen from judgment and order dated 15.12.2015 passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Excise Appeal Nos. 52520 and 53049 of 2014 whereby Tribunal has rejected appeal of Revenue against order passed by Commissioner allowing refund to Assessee.

2. Learned Counsel for appellant contended that Assessee was registered with Department on 20.12.2011 but refund was claimed for the period earlier thereto, i.e. April 2011 to September 2011, and no refund therefore, could have been claimed when Assessee was not registered.

3. Shri Krishna Agarwal learned counsel appering for appellant relied on a Madras High Court decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Sutham Nylocots, wherein refund of duty for the period prior to registration of Assessee was denied. We find that in the present case, Tribunal has followed a judgment of Karnataka High Court in mPortal India Wireless Sollution P.Ltd. v.C.S.T, Bangalore, wherein it has been held that registration with Department is not a pre requisit for claiming Cenvat Credit and therefore, refund cannot be denied for this reason above.

4. Thus the only question up for consideration in this appeal is “whether appellant is justified in denying refund to the Assessee for the period, prior to his registration with Department”.

5. The Assessee M/s Atrenta India Private Limited is engaged in providing Information Services namely Information Technology Software Service falling under Section 65(105)(zzzze) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Finance Act, 1994’).

6. Application for the period July 2011 to September 2011 was filed for claiming refund of Rs. 6,09,808/- on 28.9.2012.

7. Application was rejected by Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise Division-1 Noida (hereinafter referred to as “ACCCE”). The ground taken by ACCCE is that Assessee was not registered during claim period hence not eligible to take refund of Cenvat Credit under rule 3 of Rules, 2004 read with Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules 1994.

8. Assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the same by order dated 28.10.2013 and directed ACCCE to examine to claim of refund subject to verification of documents etc.

9. Commissioner(Appeals) held that Adjudicating Authority wrongly interpreted Section 69 of Finance Act 1994 read with Rule 4 of Export of Services Rule 2005 in observing that Assessee was required to pay service tax, hence, was obliged to obtain service tax registration. Commissioner(Appeals) held that service provided by Assessee were chargeable to ‘Service Tax’ under Section 65(105) of Finance Act 1994 but the same was not liable to pay service tax in terms of Rule 4 of Export of Services Rules 2005. It also referred and relied on Tribunal’s decisions in Commissioner of Service Tax Chennai v. E-Care India Pvt.Ltd., 2011 (022) STR 0529 and M/s Sutham Nylocots v. CCE, 2005 (188) ELT 26. It held that in view of Karnataka High Court judgment in mPortal India Wireless Solutions P.Ltd. v. C.S.T Bangalore, 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar), service tax registration was not mandatory for refund of accumulated Cenvat credit tax, paid on inputs Services, used for export services.

10. It is also said that a similar view that non registration of unit cannot be a basis for denial of refund especially when there is no such condition in notification for allowing benefit of Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004 was taken by Tribunal at Delhi in M/s Intellirisk Management India Pvt.Ltd. v. CCE Noida in Excise Appeal No. 2216-2217 of 2010 and M/s IQORR India Services Pvt.Ltd. v. GCE, Noida in Excise Appeal No. 2218-2223 of 2010 which have been accepted by Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida.

11. Appellant thereafter filed appeal before Tribunal at Allahabad which has been dismissed by impugned judgment and order relying on the judgment of Karnataka Hi