2018 (2) TMI 689 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18/06/2012 - whether refund can be granted to the respondent, when they have debited the amount not on the dated of filing of refund claim but on a later date? - Held that - the condition prescribed in the said notification having met, although on a later date the failure to debit on the date of filing the refund is not such a lapse that it would debar the respondent from the refund - issue decided in the case of Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur 2015 (10) TMI 882 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that The failure to debit on the date of filing the refund claim is not such a lapse that it would debar the appellants from the refund - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Debiting the refund amount on a later date than the date of filing the refund claim.
3. Compliance with Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18/06/2012.
4. Precedent rulings by Hon’ble High Court of Madras and Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Meerut, regarding a claim for refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The respondent had filed a claim for refund amounting to ?2,62,907/- on 26/08/2015. The issue arose as the respondent debited the amount on 10/09/2015, which was after the date of filing the refund claim. The Revenue contended that the refund should not be granted due to this discrepancy.

2. The Tribunal examined whether the refund could be granted to the respondent despite debiting the amount on a later date than the filing date. The Tribunal noted that although the condition prescribed in Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18/06/2012 was met on a later date, the failure to debit on the date of filing the refund claim was not considered a significant lapse. The Tribunal referred to a precedent decision in the case of Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, and concluded that such a delay in debiting the amount did not debar the respondent from receiving the refund. Therefore, the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed based on the precedent ruling.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on a precedent ruling by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ford India Pvt. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondent had complied with the requirements of Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18/06/2012 before the processing of the refund claim. Citing this compliance and the precedent ruling, the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed.

4. The Tribunal considered the contentions of both parties and reviewed the facts on record before making the decision. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with the notification requirements and precedent rulings in determining the eligibility for a refund. The decision was based on legal interpretations and previous tribunal rulings, ensuring consistency in the application of the law.