2019 (5) TMI 1282 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of CENVAT Credit - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012 - rejection on the ground that there was delay in reversing the availed credit - case of appellant is that this requirement was nothing but a procedural requirement - HELD THAT - This very Bench in the case of M/S. SYNTHESIS HEALTHCARE SERVICES LLP VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF GST CE, (CHENNAI SOUTH) 2019 (3) TMI 1323 - CESTAT CHENNAI Chennai has considered an identical issue in the light of the very same Notification No. 27/2012 ibid. where it was held that the condition in question is not such that it could debar the appellant from claiming the refund. The denial of refund is clearly bad and unsustainable, for which reason the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to rejection of refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Refund Claim Rejection:
The appellant challenged the order of the first appellate authority rejecting the refund claim made under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue rejected the claim citing non-fulfillment of all conditions under the Rules and Notifications. The adjudicating authority relied on previous tribunal orders and decisions. The Ld. Advocate argued that non-compliance with notification conditions is a procedural lapse and should not deny substantial relief to the assessee. The Advocate also contended that the appellant had complied with all mandatory requirements of the Notification, except for a procedural delay in reversing availed credit.

2. Judicial Precedents and Tribunal Orders:
The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in a similar case involving Notification No. 27/2012, where it was held that mere debiting of the refund amount from the credit account in the quarter, not at the time of claim, should not be a reason to reject the claim. The Tribunal also cited other cases supporting the view that procedural conditions should not bar an appellant from claiming a refund. The Tribunal found that the denial of the refund was unjustified and unsustainable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.

3. Conclusion and Decision:
After considering the arguments, tribunal orders, and legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of the refund claim was unjust and set aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that procedural lapses should not hinder an eligible party from claiming a refund under the relevant rules and notifications.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, legal interpretations, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the challenge to the rejection of the refund claim under the specified rules and notifications.