9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 336 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - time limitation - refund claim rejected mainly on the ground that the appellant had not debited the amount claimed as refund from their CENVAT credit account, which according to the said authority, was in violation of Para 2(h) of N/N. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 - HELD THAT - It is the case of the appellant that the claim of the appellant has been filed before the expiry of the quarter in which one year period from the last date of receipt of falls and accordingly the applications for refund is well within time. But, however, as regards the reversal, as could be gathered from the records, the adjudicating officer had no chance of verifying the veracity of the appellant s claim vis- -vis ST-3 Returns in the subsequent period wherein the said reversal was claimed to have been made. It is deemed proper to remand the case for the file of adjudicating authority before whom the appellant shall furnish its ST-3 Returns for the subsequent period wherein the said reversal is reflected - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
- Entitlement for refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) Detailed Analysis: The judgment revolves around the sole issue of whether the appellant is entitled to a refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). The Adjudicating Authority had initially rejected the refund claim on the basis that the appellant had not debited the claimed amount from their CENVAT credit account, which was deemed a violation of Para 2(h) of Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. This decision was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, in turn, dismissed the appeal, leading the appellant to approach the Forum for redressal. The appellant contended that they had indeed debited the refund amount in their Returns filed for the relevant period, specifically ending on 30.06.2017, which could be verified through their ST-3 Returns. The Revenue, on the other hand, supported the lower authorities' findings and cited precedents from the learned Hyderabad Bench and the same Bench in Bangalore to reinforce their stance. The appellant, in response, referred to a subsequent order from the same Bench in the case of Chariot International Pvt. Ltd. and a decision from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Suretax Prophylactics India (P) Ltd., which ruled in favor of the taxpayer. After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the cited decisions, the Tribunal highlighted the time limit aspect as per the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case referred to by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's claim was filed within the prescribed time limit, but expressed concerns regarding the verification of the claimed reversal in the subsequent period, as the adjudicating officer had not had the opportunity to confirm its accuracy. As a result, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority for further examination. The appellant was instructed to provide their ST-3 Returns for the subsequent period reflecting the alleged reversal. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to verify the reversal, consider it as compliance with Rule 2(h) of the Notification, and process the refund accordingly. Thus, the appeal was allowed by way of remand with specific directions for the adjudicating authority to follow in processing the refund claim.
|
