9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 533 - AT - Service TaxRefund of CENVAT Credit - denial of refund 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 - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) - 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, it could be gathered from the records, that 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:
Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR)? Analysis: The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the appellant is entitled to a refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 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, citing a violation of Para 2(h) of Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading the appellant to approach the forum. The appellant contended that they had indeed debited the refund amount in their Returns filed for the relevant period, which could be verified. The Revenue, however, supported the lower authorities' findings and referred to previous cases where similar contentions were rejected. The appellant cited a subsequent order by the same Bench in another case and a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in favor of the taxpayer. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and reviewed the decisions referenced. Specifically, the Tribunal noted the High Court of Karnataka's ruling regarding the time limit for filing claims. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submission that the refund claim was filed within the prescribed time limit. However, it was observed that the adjudicating officer had not verified the reversal claimed by the appellant in the subsequent period's ST-3 Returns. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority for further examination. The appellant was directed to provide the ST-3 Returns for the subsequent period to verify the claimed reversal. If the reversal was indeed reflected in the subsequent period, the Adjudicating Authority was instructed to consider it as compliance with Rule 2(h) of the Notification and process the refund in accordance with the law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand with the specified directions. The order was pronounced in Open Court on 12/10/2021.
|
