9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For Appellant: S. Ramachandran, Consultant For Respondents: L. Nanda Kumar, Authorized Representative ORDER P. Dinesha, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the denial of refund claimed under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 ('CCR' for short) for the two periods viz., January 2017 to March 2017 and April 2017 to June 2017. 2.1. It is the case of the assessee t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/2018 (R) both dated 20.08.2018 rejected the entire refund claims, against which the assessee approached the First Appellate Authority by filing Appeals. 2.3. The Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai vide common impugned Order-in-Appeal Nos. 691 and 692/2018 dated 28.12.2018 rejected the Appeals inter alia on the grounds that the assessee had not debited the same amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 (h) of Notification No. 27/2012-C.E.(N.T.) : dated 18.06.2012, etc. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri. S. Ramachandran, Ld. Consultant, appeared for the assessee and Shri. L. Nandakumar, Ld. AR, appeared for the Revenue. 4. Reiterating the submissions made before the lower authorities, Ld. Consultant also contended that none of the authorities below had considered the facts in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the condition at paragraph 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012 : (supra). But the fact also remains that there was no provision in the ACES system to debit the value of refund and also the fact that the entire credit which was carried forward in TRAN-1 stood reversed by the appellant voluntarily in its GSTR-3B filed for the month of April 2018. 7.2 The above facts, according to me, are sufficient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
