9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 796 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim under Notification No.12/12-NT dated 18-06-2012 for the period from July 2014 to September 2014 - Requirment of registrarion - HELD THAT - It is found that the decision quoted by the Revenue of EAGLE FLASK INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE 2004 (9) TMI 102 - SUPREME COURT is in the context of requirement of a declaration (in non tariff notification), which was held to be not merely a procedural requirement but a substantive one by the Apex Court. The same was also in context of exemption notification. As against this in the present case the decision of a KAPU GEMS VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -SURAT-I 2024 (1) TMI 1118 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD is directly on the point and holds that refund claim on goods exported cannot be denied on account of registration not being there. This Court is also of the view that refund is permissible in law and only for verification of the same, the matter is remanded to the original authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Refund claim under Notification No.12/12-NT dated 18-06-2012 for the period from July 2014 to September 2014; Interpretation of conditions under the Notification; Conflict between the Notification and the parent legislation; Applicability of registration requirement for granting refund; Disregard of High Court decisions by the Appellate Commissioner; Legal position on denial of refund claim due to lack of registration for exported goods; Remand for verification of refund documents. Analysis: The appellant, registered under "Information Technology Software Service," filed a refund claim under Notification No.12/12-NT dated 18-06-2012 for Rs. 6,50,808 for the period from July 2014 to September 2014. The claim was allowed but reviewed under section 84 of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant objected to the review, yet received a demand show cause notice. The Appellate Commissioner referenced Karnataka High Court decisions but allowed the department's appeal, stating the Notification cannot omit requirements of the main legislation. The appellant argued that the Act and Rules do not mandate registration for refunds under the Notification. The Notification under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules grants refund subject to specified conditions. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Notification must align with the parent legislation. However, the appellant contended that unless a condition is explicitly stated in the Notification, it cannot be implied. The Appellate Commissioner's reasoning was deemed incorrect as there was no conflict between the Notification and the Act. High Court decisions supported the appellant's stance that registration was not a prerequisite for refunds. The Court reviewed relevant case law, noting that denial of a refund claim due to lack of registration for exported goods is not sustainable. The matter was remanded for document verification. The Court concluded that refund is permissible in law and remanded the case for processing the refund claim. The appeal was allowed by remand, emphasizing the need for verification of refund documents.
|
