TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim - Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 - Held that:- The delay is there only on account of the receipt of appellant’s application for refund and this fact is duly supported by the Legacy Cell letter dated 18.07.2017 in C.No. IV/16/02/2017-Misc.Leg.RF/ RB-II issued by the Office of the Commissioner Goods and Service Tax, Chennai-South Commissionerate, wherein the date of claim of the appellant for refund has been acknowledged as 27.06.2017 - there is no finding by the lower authorities as to the non-compliance with any of the provisions of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 for rejecting appellant’s claim. This, coupled with date of acknowledgement by the Legacy Cell, makes it very clear that the appellant’s claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. CCE, Pondicherry 2018 (10) GSTL 172 (Mad.), Integra software Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pondicherry 2017 (48) STR 137 (Tri.-Chen.) and also the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cosmonaut Chemicals Vs. UOI 2009 (233) ELT 46 (Guj.) in his support. 3. Per contra, Ld. DR supported the findings of the lower authorities, also pointed out that the date of application is 12.07.2017, which has been duly considered and refund has been worked out as on 12.07.2017. He further pointed out that as per the Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012, the adjudicating authority has duly considered the balance of Cenvat credit available as on the last day of the quarter that available on the day of filing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the Legacy Cell letter dated 18.07.2017 in C.No. IV/16/02/2017-Misc.Leg.RF/ RB-II issued by the Office of the Commissioner Goods and Service Tax, Chennai-South Commissionerate, wherein the date of claim of the appellant for refund has been acknowledged as 27.06.2017. 4.5 I do not find any finding by the lower authorities as to the non-compliance with any of the provisions of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 for rejecting appellant s claim. This, coupled with date of acknowledgement by the Legacy Cell, makes it very clear that the appellant s claim for refund was in order and is even so, in terms of Notifications referred to in the Order-in-Original. For the above reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the rejection of the appellant s cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
