9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit at the end of the quarter, as is held by the adjudicating authority below. It is apparent from the record that the appellant herein, after it came to his notice that ST-3 return for the impugned period is showing ‘Nil’ balance, had requested the Department vide their letter dated 28.12.2016 and subsequently vide letter dated 16.01.2017 to permit the submission of revised ST-3 return for the impugned period so as to rectify the mistake of cenvat credit figures, but the same has been denied by the Department - In the present case, the ST -3 is showing nil balance, whereas the voluminous documents of the appellant are showing the balance of ₹ 6,43,603/- lying in the account for the impugned period. In such circumstances, Rule 7 B is merely procedural in nature. ST-3 return as the sole document to verify the balance - Held that:- The mistake in ST-3 return was a rectifiable mistake - This Tribunal in the case of Serco Global Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [2015 (6) TMI 270 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that even if ST-3 return for a particular period do not show any unutilized balance of cenvat credit, the refund still is to be gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , whichever is less. It is submitted that though inadvertently in the impugned ST-3, the balance was shown Nil . But it was highly inappropriate on the part of the adjudicating authorities below to ignore the relevant documents as were submitted by the appellant to show the existing balance in accordance whereof the impugned refund was filed. Ld. Counsel has impressed upon that while replying the show cause notice itself, a Certificate from the Chartered Accountant certifying the claim of accumulated cenvat credit of ₹ 6,43,606/- was furnished. Alongwith the said certificate all the requisite declarations and documents as that of invoices were also submitted still the authority below has emphasized merely on ST-3 returns despite the fact that request for submitting for the correct returns was placed before the Range Superintendent rather twice which were not considered. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the following case laws to impress upon that refund claim cannot be rejected on the basis of mistakes in ST-3 returns: 1. Broadcom India Research Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore reported in 2015 TIOL-2870-CESTAT-Bang. 2. Serco Global Services Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2015-TIO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein as balance is concerned, I am of the opinion that ST-3 cannot be the only reliable record to verify the balance cenvat credit at the end of the quarter, as is held by the adjudicating authority below. 8. It is apparent from the record that the appellant herein, after it came to his notice that ST-3 return for the impugned period is showing Nil balance, had requested the Department vide their letter dated 28.12.2016 and subsequently vide letter dated 16.01.2017 to permit the submission of revised ST-3 return for the impugned period so as to rectify the mistake of cenvat credit figures, but the same has been denied by the Department. Though reliance upon rule 7 B of Service Tax Rules has been placed. According to which a revised ST- 3 return can be filed by an assessee within a period of 90 days and the said rule is taken as a ground to reject the request of the assessee/appellant to submit the revised ST-3 return, but I am of the opinion that Rule 7 B will have no substantive implication in a case where the assessee has cogent documentary evidence to support that the proposed revision of ST-3 is utmost important. In the present case, the ST -3 is showing nil balance, whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committed an error while rejecting the request of the appellant to revise the ST-3 return despite the availability of documents to justify the said revision mainly on the ground of it being proposed beyond the stipulated period. So has been done by Commissioner (Appeals) while endorsing this finding. 11. Coming back to the issue of the ST-3 return as the sole document to verify the balance, I opine that in view of above discussion about Rule 7 B, it becomes clear that mistake in ST-3 return was a rectifiable mistake. Tribunal, Bangalore in Ceolric Services vs. CST, Bangalore reported in 2011 (23) STR 369 has held that the ST-3 returns are rectifiable and revised return should not have been discarded as nonest. The Tribunal further held as follows:- In view of the provision of Rule 7C of the Rules, the revised return cannot be ignored simply on the ground that the same has been filed after a period provided under Rule 7B of the Rules. In these circumstances, we find that the matter requires re-consideration by the adjudicating authority in view of the provision of Rule 7C of the Rules. The impugned order is set aside, after waiving pre-deposit of the amount of service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
