TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdening services - tour operator services - packaging services - reversal of cenvat credit in respect of the refund rejected is beyond the jurisdiction - time limitation. HELD THAT:- The original authority has directed the respondent to debit / reverse the cenvat account to the tune of which has not been sanctioned. The respondent has already debited the amount in their cenvat account before filing the refund claim. The original authority ought not to have directed the respondent to reverse the credit again for the mere reason that the refund has not been sanctioned in cash. The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly understood the matter - it can be seen that by the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not sanctioned any amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns are filed by the respondent seeking to incorporate the change in respondent s name in the cause title as Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited. They have produced the Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to change of name issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. 2. The prayer is allowed. MAs for change of cause title are allowed. Registry is directed to amend the cause title accordingly. 3. The issue involved in all these appeals being similar they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 4. The respondent in these appeals is a private limited company engaged in the activity of export of information technology and software related services. The respondent is registered with the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... management service, gardening services, tour operator, packaging services are eligible for credit as these are used in relation to the business activities of the respondent. 5.4 Fourthly, that the direction of the adjudicating authority to reverse the cenvat credit in respect of the refund rejected is beyond the jurisdiction. 6. The Ld. A.R submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erroneously held that the registration with the department is not mandatory for claiming cenvat credit. The credit availed by the respondent for the unregistered premises ought not to have been allowed. 7. The various services in the nature of clearing and forwarding services, event management service, gardening services, tour operator, packaging se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) and submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly examined the facts and held that the decision of the original authority directing the respondent to reverse the credit which was not granted as cash refund is absolutely improper and bad in law. This is because the respondent company had already reversed the credit in respect of the amount claimed as refund prior to filing the refund claim. The original authority had granted part of the refund claim as cash refund. In respect of the amount that was rejected as refund, the original authority directed the respondent to again reverse the amount which the respondent company had challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... February 2008 to July 2008 was filed on 18.05.2009. The period prior to March 2008 is barred by limitation. The original authority has not granted the cash refund and the respondent has not been granted cash refund by the Commissioner (Appeals) also. The direction of the original authority to reverse the credit again has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) giving opportunity to the respondent to avail recredit. In such circumstances, the bar of limitation is of no consequence. Ld.counsel prayed that the appeals may be dismissed. 12. Heard both sides. On perusal of the facts narrated as above, it is seen that the original authority has granted part of the refund as cash by separate orders. In the said orders, the respondent compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The discussions made by the Commissioner (Appeals) is as under : 11.1. Further, I find that even that part of the claim which was hit by the limitation of time (in terms of the Sec 11 B of CEA, which is made applicable to the claims under the Rule 5 of CCR, as envisaged in the notification issued under the said Rule ) also couldn't be directed to be reversed and in case it was already reversed prior to filing the claim, the same ought to have been allowed as re-credit. But much contrary, the original authority had directed the appellant to reverse the entire amount of credit claimed as refund, which includes that portion of the claim which was held as time barred. Hence I hold that the decision of the original authority to reverse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
