9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants are providing Consulting Engineering and Information Technology Software Service. They filed refund claim for ₹ 8,54,696/- for the period Apr. 15 to Mar. 16 on 21.01.2017 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for refund of unutilized Cenvat credit. After due process of law, the refund sanctioning authority rejected the refund claim on various grounds. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned consultant Shri R. Viswanathan explained the various grounds on which the refund has been rejected, which are detailed below:- (i) An amount of ₹ 20,109/- has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over. Thereafter, the said advance was adjusted to the charges of the services. This aspect has not been taken into consideration by the authorities below. The rejection alleging that part of the refund claim is time-barred is only due to erroneous approach taken by the authorities below. (iv) An amount of ₹ 2,41,781/- has been rejected as stated in para 12 (c) of Order-in-Original alleging that the appellant has not debited the credit before filing the refund claim. In fact, the appellant has debited the credit on 31.03.2016 and a revised ST-3 return was filed. The notification does not state that the appellant has to reflect the same in the ST-3 returns. It is sufficient, if the appellant debits the credit before the refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within their premises. It is very much necessary for appellants to have this service. Therefore, I find that the rejection of refund on Car Parking Charges is unjustified and requires to be set aside, which I hereby do. 6. On going through the other grounds for rejection of refund, as rightly pointed out by learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue, I find that most of the issue requires verification by the refund sanctioning authority. Therefore, I deem it fit to remand the matter to the refund sanctioning authority, who shall look into the pleas put forward by the appellant as narrated above. The decisions relied upon by the appellant shall also be taken into consideration. The appellant shall be given an opportunity to furnis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
