9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards refund claim is not done to the extent of 15,40,950/-.. Denial of refund on the ground of non-registration - HELD THAT:- The denial of CENVAT credit on the ground of non-registration is not sustainable in law in view of the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of MPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [ 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . The said decision has been consistently followed by the Tribunal in many decisions - the denial of refund on this basis is set aside. Refund of KKC - Scope of SCN - HELD THAT:- The KKC is eligible for CENVAT credit. Further, the Original Authority has not disputed the eligibility of KKC but the Original Authority has only rejected the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were used in providing output services exported without payment of Service Tax under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 and Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. The Original Authority has sanctioned refund of ₹ 4,17,82,099/- and rejected the claim of ₹ 18,72,960/- vide the OIO No.46/2018 dated 11.04.2018 on the following grounds: * Copy of input invoice not available for the amount of ₹ 1,61,954/-. * Ineligible input credit amounting to ₹ 2,900/-. * The address mentioned in the invoices is not in ST-2 for the amount of ₹ 1,86,956/-. * CENVAT debit towards refund claim is not done to the extent of ₹ 15,40,950/-. 2.1. Aggrieved by the OIO to the extent of rejection of refund, appellant filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . * Principal Commissioner Vs Affiliated Computer Services, 2018 (10) GSTL 181 (All.) * Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai Vs CESTAT, Chennai, 2017 (3) GSTL 45 (Mad.) 4.1. He further submitted that once the credit is not disputed at the proper forum, the refund processing authority cannot adjudicate on the eligibility of the credit. With regard to second issue of denial of CENVAT credit on KKC, the Learned Counsel submitted that the appellant is eligible for the refund of the accumulated CENVAT credit as per the safequards and conditions prescribed. He also submitted that as per CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the term "CENVAT Credit" has been defined in Rule 3. With the introduction of KKC on provisions of services, the said Rule was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a Cess, called the Krishi Kalyan Cess, @ 0.5% on all taxable services, proceeds of which would be exclusively used for financing initiatives relating to improvement of agriculture and welfare of farmers. The Cess will come into force with effect from 1st June 2016. Input Tax credit of this Cess will be available for payment of this Cess." 4.3. He further submitted that the impugned order has rejected the refund on KKC on entirely new ground whereas the Original Authority has rejected the refund of KKC only on the ground that the appellant has not debited the same in their ST-3 Returns. He further submitted that the finding of the original authorities is factually incorrect. He produced before me the Returns filed during the relevant time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
