9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et aside the refunds granted by the Assistant Commissioner in favour of the appellant. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of granite slabs and tiles classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 68022390 of CETA, 1985 and are availing the cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services used in the manufacture of their finished goods under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004(CCR). Appellant had filed three refund applications for refund of cenvat credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dt. 18/06/2012. The details of various refund are given herein below:- Sl.No. Period Amount Filed on 1. October 2016 to December 2016 Rs. 6, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the delay was condoned. The Department filed appeals before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who set aside the Orders-in-Original and disallowed the refunds on the ground that credit reversal in GSTR3B pertains to GST credit and not cenvat credit and by invoking Section 142(3) and Section 142(4), he disallowed the refunds. On perusal of the documents on record, I find that eligibility of the appellant to claim refund is not disputed and it is also not disputed that the appellant has debited the amount claimed in the GSTR3B. I also find that the Tribunal has consistently held that credit reversed without being utilized considered as if credit has not been taken. Hence the credit reversed in GSTR-3B tantamounts to not been taken credit in cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants are in appeal before us against the said order of Commissioner(Appeals). The short question to be decided is if the refund can be granted to the appellants when they have debited the amount not on the date of filing refund claim but on a later date. It is seen that the conditions prescribed in the notification having met although on a later date. The failure to debit on the date of filing the refund claim is not such a lapse that it would debar the appellants from the refund. On the day of debiting the cenvat account they have fulfilled the conditions of the notification. In that event they become entitled to refund on that date. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside, the appeal is allowed with consequential benefit. .. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
