+ It is acknowledged that the appellant is registered under Service Tax Rules, 1994 as provider of services and it is amply clear from the statutory records that the appellant has been discharging tax liability too. Eligibility to take CENVAT Credit in accordance with rule 3(1) cannot, therefore, be denied. There is no evidence on record to show that ‘input services' to the extent recorded has not been received or that such ‘input service' is not relatable to the services for which registration has been obtained.
+ There is, indubitably, an obligation to maintain records and any breach thereof penalized by specifically enumerated penalties that, however, do not include erasure of credit earned. The original authority has, without valid reason, ventured to surmise that there was no credit accumulation available to the appellant. Refusal to consider the claim for refund on the ground of non-existence of credit is an act of arbitrariness.
+ With this accumulation of credit, the appellant was entitled to discharge its tax obligations but chose not to and, instead, paid the tax due on services rendered within the country through the traditional means i.e. deposit of money. That this tax was accepted into the Consolidated Fund of India is sufficient to reinforce the eligibility of the appellant as provider of taxable service to take and avail CENVAT Credit even if the adjudicating authority has, with unconcealed lack of grace, brushed it aside as lacking sanctity owing to it being a self-assessed act. That same disdain is apparent in the disinclination to acknowledge the registration which is also dismissed as a voluntary act.
+ Considering the proportion of exports, inability to utilize the accumulated credit is clearly acceptable.
+ With the registration and subsequent compliance with Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax rules, 1994, the appellant is clearly and undoubtedly, within the ambit of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
+ There is no finding by both lower authorities that the said services have not been utilized by the appellant; nor is there any allegation to that effect in the show cause notice. There is neither allegation nor finding that exports have not taken place or that the proceeds were not realized.
+ On perusal of rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, it is seen that this provision for refund of accumulated credit is self-contained and is not subject to any other rule or provision of the Rules. The criteria for refund are existence of accumulated credit, insufficient opportunity for utilization thereof and limiting the extent of refund to the proportion that export turnover bears to total turnover.
+ Once an entity has declared that it is liable to tax under the statute of a State, there is no power to deny that status. The primary obligation to determine liability to tax as provider of ‘taxable service' vests with the person who renders such service with tax authorities intervening solely for prevention of evasion of tax in a self-assessment regime.
+ In this limited dichotomy, we find no statutory provision by which a tax administrator can step in to rule that tax is not leviable - except on a claim by an entity to non-exigibility. There is no allegation of short-levy of tax against the appellant and the appellant has not made a claim that they are not liable to tax. Not only do the returns make clear that they render export of service but that tax liability is discharged on the same services in India.
+ The liability to pay tax having been accepted and the assertion that the taxable services are exempt only by reason of export having been accepted, Revenue cannot, thereafter, take a stand that the service for which registration has been taken is not taxable. The two lower authorities have erred in resorting to an act that is not within the scope of their authority under Finance Act, 1994.
