2019 (5) TMI 1281 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of CENVAT Credit - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012 - rejection on the ground that there was delay in reversing the availed credit - case of appellant is that this requirement was nothing but a procedural requirement - HELD THAT - This very Bench in the case of M/S. SYNTHESIS HEALTHCARE SERVICES LLP VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF GST CE, (CHENNAI SOUTH) 2019 (3) TMI 1323 - CESTAT CHENNAI Chennai has considered an identical issue in the light of the very same Notification No. 27/2012 ibid. where it was held that the condition in question is not such that it could debar the appellant from claiming the refund. The denial of refund is clearly bad and unsustainable, for which reason the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund claim under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.)

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the rejection of their refund claim made under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012. The Revenue rejected the claim, citing the mandatory requirement for the assessee to fulfill all conditions under the Rules and Notifications to be eligible for a refund.

2. The appellant contended that they had reversed the credit equivalent to the refund claim before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, emphasizing that non-compliance with Notification conditions should not deny substantial relief to the assessee. The appellant argued that they had complied with all mandatory requirements of Notification No. 27/2012, except for a procedural delay in reversing the availed credit.

3. The Tribunal examined previous decisions, including a case involving an identical issue under the same Notification, where it was held that mere debiting of the refund amount in the relevant quarter, instead of at the time of claim, should not be a reason to reject the claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the condition in question was procedural and should not obstruct the grant of substantial benefits to the appellant.

4. Considering the arguments and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of the refund was unjustified and unsustainable. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per law.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key arguments, legal principles, and precedents considered by the Tribunal in reaching its decision to allow the appeal and grant the refund claim.