9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are the accounts of the assessee in the form of balance sheets, bills & invoices. Though whatever balance is being shown in the accounts of the assessee has to find mention in the ST-3 but due to the said documents being the basis of ST-3 as far as the amounts shown therein as balance is concerned, ST-3 cannot be the only reliable record to verify the balance cenvat credit at the end of the quarter. Range Superintendent had also 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. Issue o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it were not appearing in the ST-3 Return for the period January, 2016 to March, 2016 and no concrete evidence was submitted with the claim that cenvat credit is available to them. The said proposal of rejection was confirmed by the Order in Original No.07 dated 13.09.2017 and appeal thereof was rejected. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard Mr. Manish Saharan, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P. R. Gupta, ld. D.R. for the Department. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the only ground of rejection of the claim, as is apparent from order in appeal is the alleged non-fulfilment of condition (g) of the Notification No.27/2012 dated 18.06.2012 which requires that the amount of refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing these arguments has submitted that only document to check the balance available with the assessee at the end of quarter is the ST-3 return filed by the assessee. Since the assessee /appellant herein admittedly had filed the ST-3 return showing Nil balance, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly formed an opinion about non-fulfilment of condition (g) of Notification No.27/2012. It is submitted that though the appellant herein requested to the Range Superintendent about filing a revised ST-3 return but as per the statutory provision, the return can be modified only within a period of 90 days that too electronically. None, admittedly, was the case of the appellant. The impugned modification was proposed after a gap of 8 months. The Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts shown therein 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 (received on the same date) and subsequently vide letter dated 13.01.2017 (received on 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 Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the court in which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. 9. In another decision in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India reported in 2005 (6) SCC 344 the Hon ble Apex Court has considered the question as to whether the Court has any power or jurisdiction to extend the period beyond 90 days. It was held as foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not 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 tax, interest and penalty and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh after offering an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. 12. This Tribunal in the case of Serco Global Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III reported in 2015 TIOL 1044-CESTAT-Del. has held that even if ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
