9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 565 - AT - Service TaxRefund of accumulated and unutilized CENVAT credit - export of output services - denial of refund on the ground that the appellant had not submitted documents towards Proof of Reversal of Refund Claimed amount and Declaration of non-carry forward of CENVAT credit to Tran-1 etc. - HELD THAT - As far as refund of 5, 13, 086/- is concerned the appellant is entitled to the same as per the CENVAT credit balance at the time of filing the refund claim which both the authorities have also fairly conceded that the refund should be restricted to 5, 13, 086/-. The rejection of the refund by both the authorities on the ground that the appellants have not debited the CENVAT account before filing the refund claim which is in violation of Para 2(h) of the Notification No. 27/2012 dated 18.06.2012 is not sustainable in law in view of the judgment of the Mumbai Bench in the case of SANDOZ PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELAPUR 2015 (10) TMI 882 - CESTAT MUMBAI the CENVAT credit was debited in the present case on 31.03.2018 vide Voucher No. 26 which is also placed on record but the same was not considered by both the authorities. The appellant is entitled to the refund claim to the extent of 5, 13, 086/- but remand the matter to the original authority with a direction to verify the documents pertaining to reversal of credit in terms of Para 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012 dated 18.06.2012 - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on procedural lapses and non-submission of documents for proof of reversal of claimed amount and declaration of non-carry forward of CENVAT credit. Analysis: The appellant, engaged in Export of Services under 'Information Technology Software Services', filed a refund claim for accumulated and unutilized CENVAT credit on input services used for exported output services. The claim was rejected due to missing documents and non-reversal of claimed amount. The appellant argued that the impugned order lacked legal merit and the non-submission of a signed ledger extract was a procedural lapse, not affecting refund eligibility. They cited a case precedent to support the delay in debiting the CENVAT account post-filing. The appellant clarified no reversal in Service Tax was possible due to the transition to GST, submitting a NIL TRAN-1 Return and restricting the refund claim amount. Despite discrepancies in voucher numbers, the appellant's entitlement to a refund of ?5,13,086 was acknowledged by both parties. The Tribunal found the rejection of the refund claim invalid, as the appellant had debited the CENVAT account post-filing, as per the Mumbai Bench judgment cited. The Tribunal noted the misreference to Voucher No. 24 and emphasized the relevance of Vouchers 23 and 26. Additionally, the appellant's compliance with GST regulations and non-carry forward of input credit supported their refund entitlement. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the refund claim of ?5,13,086 but remanded the matter to verify credit reversal documents as per Notification No. 27/2012. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, ensuring procedural compliance and refund validation. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural and legal intricacies involved in the refund claim rejection and subsequent appeal, emphasizing the importance of compliance with documentation requirements and legal precedents in tax refund cases.
|
