9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jt. Commissioner (AR) .....for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 4.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are registered as service providers under the category of 'Structural Design and Detailing consultancy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 read with Section 142(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egime since GST was done away with the filing of the ST-3 returns. Further, they have submitted that there was no procedure in ACES System to debit the value of refund claim in the Cenvat account during the relevant period. Learned counsel also referred to CBIC Circular No.58/32/2018-GST dated 4.9.2018 wherein the Board itself had clarified that the reversal of credit in GSTR-3B amounts to non-ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illed the conditions of the Notification and thereby become entitled to the refund on that date. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant have reversed the CENVAT credit in their CENVAT credit account but the same was not shown in the ST-3 Returns bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
