2018 (8) TMI 1680 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 and N/N. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 - Rejection on the ground of non-compliance of Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - There is weight in the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that it has not availed double benefit, but has reversed the credit in its St-3 returns which has been filed even before the issuance of SCN which is dated 28/06/2016 which proves that the appellant itself has reversed the credit, but however, a verification is required to be made to the satisfaction of the Revenue also - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund of un-utilized Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 and Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 for the period from April 2012 to March 2014.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a service provider under "Business Support Service and Business Auxiliary Service," sought a refund of un-utilized input credit amounting to ?7,71,820 for various periods from April 2012 to March 2014. The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) questioning the refund claim and calling for explanations regarding compliance with relevant provisions.

2. The appellant responded to the SCN, justifying its refund claim and explaining its eligibility. The Revenue contended that the claim should be rejected for non-compliance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, applicable to service tax, and other conditions. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims as time-barred, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II).

3. During the appeal, the appellant's counsel highlighted that the service tax return in form ST-3, filed on 20.04.2016, included the reversal of Cenvat credit, aiming to prevent double benefit. The counsel argued that the reversal was to avoid retaining the credit while claiming a refund. The Revenue acknowledged the need for verification of the reversal reflected in the ST-3 returns.

4. The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and found merit in the appellant's argument that no double benefit was availed, as the reversal was made in the ST-3 returns even before the SCN was issued. However, verification of the reversal was deemed necessary to satisfy the Revenue. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the adjudicating authority for verification and potential refund with appropriate reliefs, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.

5. In conclusion, all appeals were disposed of, emphasizing the need for verification of the reversal of Cenvat credit in the ST-3 returns before granting the refund, if found in order, with consequential reliefs as per law. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure fairness and compliance with legal provisions in the refund process.