9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 209 - AT - Service TaxRefund of accumulated and unutilized CENVAT credit - export of output services - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) and N/N. 27/2012 dt. 18/06/2012 - HELD THAT - While filing the refund claim, the appellant was required to debit the CENVAT amount claimed as refund from his CENVAT Credit account and the said amount should also be reflected in their ST-3 return but the same was not done in the present case - as per the said Notification, it is the mandatory condition. Further the reasons for not debiting and not showing the same in their ST-3 return, are not very convincing. In the case of APEX CO VANTAGE INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCT, RANGAREDDY- GST 2018 (6) TMI 814 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , identical question was involved and the CESTAT, Hyderabad Bench, after detailed analysis of the Notification and the various case law, has held that It is clear that N/N. 05/2006 CE (NT) lays down that the amount claimed as refund of CENVAT amount should be debited before applying for the Refund and the appellant had not done so. They have debited the amount, but much later and thereby they violated the condition 2(h) of the notification. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on non-compliance with Notification No.27/2012 - Debiting requirement from CENVAT Credit account - Failure to reflect in ST-3 return - Appeal against Order-in-Original dismissal - Compliance with Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Transition to GST regime - Interpretation of Notification conditions - Precedent analysis for similar cases. Analysis: The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner(Appeals) based on non-compliance with Notification No.27/2012, specifically condition 2(h) mandating the claimant to debit the refund amount from their CENVAT Credit account at the time of claim. The appellant sought a refund of accumulated CENVAT credit for input services used in exporting output services. The Assistant Commissioner's Order-in-Original and subsequent dismissal by the Commissioner(Appeals) were contested. The appellant's argument emphasized system limitations preventing debiting in ST-3 return post-refund claim filing and subsequent debiting in GSTR3B returns. However, the AR highlighted the mandatory nature of condition 2(h) and cited relevant case law supporting the dismissal due to non-compliance. Upon review, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to debit the CENVAT amount claimed as refund from their account and did not reflect it in the ST-3 return, violating the mandatory condition of Notification No.27/2012. The Commissioner(Appeals) detailed reasons for rejecting the claim, emphasizing the necessity of debiting the correct amount at the time of claim. The case law analysis, including the Apex company Vantage India Pvt. Ltd. case, supported the dismissal due to the failure to comply with the debiting requirement before applying for the refund. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, citing the precedent's relevance and confirming the dismissal of the appeal. In conclusion, the judgment reaffirmed the importance of strict compliance with Notification conditions, particularly the requirement to debit the refund amount from the CENVAT Credit account at the time of claim. The decision highlighted the significance of timely and accurate debiting to ensure adherence to Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The analysis of relevant case law underscored the Tribunal's consistent approach in upholding dismissals for non-compliance with such essential conditions, emphasizing the need for precision in fulfilling statutory obligations for refund claims under the specified rules and notifications.
|
