PANKAJ MITHAL,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nishant Mishra along with Sri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) In this Central Excise appeal the following substantial question of law has been raised:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CESTAT, New Delhi was justified in law in holding that no service tax registration during the period for which the instant refund was filed, was required for refund of service tax under the Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) dated 14-3-2006, pertaining to the period prior to the registration of the respondent with the department?"
(3.) The question whether the CESTAT was correct in allowing the CENVAT credit of the services used at unregistered premises and refund thereof has come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Central Excise Appeal No. 60 of 2017 in Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida v. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Noida [2017 (52) S.T.R. J253 (All.)]. The said appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 22-7-2017 holding that the question stand answered in the case of Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate v. M/s. Atrenta India Pvt. Ltd. Noida, 2017 (2) ADJ 590 (DB) : 2017 (48) S.T.R. 361 (All.).;