9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... US M/S HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL [ 2010 (11) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT ] it is further held that the Commissioner (Appeals) have mis-conceived and mis-directed himself by ignoring the ruling of the Hon ble Supreme Court, which is both judicial indiscipline and also in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant refund within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order along with interest as per Rules (starting from the end of 3 months from the date of filing of the refund claim till the date of grant of refund claim) - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeals Nos. 50753 and 50754 of 2020 - FINAL ORDER NO. 51875-51876/2021 - Dated:- 14-10-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Show cause notice was issued pursuant to scrutiny as it appeared that the appellant has not debited the refund claim amount at the time of making the claim, as required under Condition No.2 (h) of Notification No.27/2012 dated 18.06.2012. Vide separate orders in original refund claim was rejected observing that the appellant has not debited the amount of refund claimed in cenvat credit account, as required under Condition 2 (h) of the Notification. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, on the ground that the debit of the refund claimed amount was made in the cenvat credit account in September, 2017, for the refund relating to the quarter April to June, 2017 and in December ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed. The condition of the impugned notification, that the amount claimed as refund shall be debited by the claimant from his CENVAT credit account at the time of making the claim, is a substantive one. 6. Further, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the ruling of this Tribunal being Final Order No.A/30635-30637/2018 dated 14.06.2018 in the case of Apex Co. Vantage India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT, Rangareddy, wherein it has been held that the debit in the cenvat credit account subsequent to the filing of the refund claim violates the condition 2 (h) of the notification. Further, observing that the Rule or the notification does not provide the flexibility to the officers or the Tribunal to relax Condition No.2(h) of the notification. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order. 10. Having considered the rival contentions, I hold that the debit of the amount of refund claim in the cenvat credit account suo moto before the adjudication, is sufficient compliance Condition No.2(h) of the Notification No.27/2012-CE. Further relying on the ruling of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Chand Shri Gopal Ors.(supra), I further hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) have mis-conceived and mis-directed himself by ignoring the ruling of the Hon ble Supreme Court, which is both judicial indiscipline and also in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned order(s) is set aside. Further, the Adjudicating Authority is directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
