Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 699 - AT - Service TaxRefund of accumulated credit - Export of services - debit entry was reflected in the ST-3 return of subsequent period and not for the period in question - allegation that the condition 2(h) of the Notification does not stand satisfied - HELD THAT:- The appellant had taken a categorical stand that the debit was made on 05.03.2014, i.e. prior to filing of the refund claim. The Revenue is not disputing the said debit entry but is adopting a hyper technical view that such debit entry was reflected in the ST-3 return of subsequent period and not for the period in question. The entire idea of debit of cenvat credit before filing of refund claim is that an assessee does not avail the dual benefit of credit as also refund of the same. It is primarily for this reason that the relevant rule read with notification in question requires debit before filing of refund claim so as to avoid double benefit to the claimant - This was also observed by the Tribunal the case of M/s. Kellogg and Andelson Management Service Pvt Ltd. Vs. CST, Chennai II [2018 (8) TMI 1680 - CESTAT CHENNAI]. There is no dispute about the fact that services in question were exported and appellant is otherwise entitled to the refund of accumulated credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification in question - Inasmuch the books of accounts stand already debited by the appellant on 05.03.2014, before filing of refund claim on 20.03.2014, there are no justifiable reason to deny the refund claim on the said hyper-technical ground. Revenue is directed to refund the admissible amount of credit to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|