9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE [ 2020 (10) TMI 675 - CESTAT BANGALORE] where it was held that the respondent while rejecting the refund claims has not properly appreciated the condition/limitation envisaged in paragraphs 2(g) and 2(h) in Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18-6-2012. The said paragraph only provides that the amount of refund claim shall not be more than the amount lies in the Cenvat credit account at the end of the quarter for which the claim is filed or at the time of filing of refund claim, whichever is less. This condition has been interpreted out of context by the respondent in the impugned order and the respondent has erred in not appreciating the facts as also the condition envisaged in Notification No. 27/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quarter April 2016 to June 2016 and in Appeal No. ST/40815/2018, the refund claim is filed for the period July 2016 to September 2016. In the first appeal, the refund has been rejected for the reason of wrong interpretation of clause 2(g) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT). The appellant has to debit the amount which is claimed as refund before filing the refund claim as required under clause 2(h) of the said Notification. After debiting the amount, which is claimed as refund, the balance in CENVAT credit was nil . The refund has been rejected stating that clause 2(g) has not been fulfilled which says that the amount of refund claim shall not be more than the amount lying in balance at the time of filing refund claim. He submitted that bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Arul C. Durairaj supported the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The first issue is with regard to non-fulfillment of the conditions as required under clause 2(g) and clause 2(h) of the said Notification. The said clauses are reproduced as under:- 2(g) the amount of refund claimed shall not be more than the amount lying in balance at the end of quarter for which refund claim is being made or at the time of filing of the refund claim, whichever is less. 2(h) the amount that is claimed as refund under Rule 5 of the said rules shall be debited by the claimant from his Cenvat credit account at the time of making the claim. 9. As per clause 2(h)of the Notification, the assessee is required to debit th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d has also shown nil in ST-3 returns filed with the Department. Further I find that the objection of the Department that the appellant has not debited the Cenvat credit account before filing the refund claim is not factually correct, in fact the appellants have debited the Cenvat credit account before filing the refund claim and the same is clearly shown in the ST-3 returns also. Further I find that the respondent while rejecting the refund claims has not properly appreciated the condition/limitation envisaged in paragraphs 2(g) and 2(h) in Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18-6-2012. The said paragraph only provides that the amount of refund claim shall not be more than the amount lies in the Cenvat credit account at the end of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
