TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. - Appeal No. ST/42363/2018 - FINAL ORDER No. 40198/2019 - Dated:- 18-1-2019 - Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri M. Jagan Babu, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Appellant is providing service under the category of Business Auxiliary Service from July, 2011 onwards and since the appellant is exporting information technology services to its overseas clients viz., M/s. Intralign, M/s. Armedix LLC, M/s. Medical Billing Experts LLC, M/s. Physources Solutions, USA, filed a refund clain on 26.11.2015 in respect of input service credit taken under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, being un-utilized credit under Notification No. 27/2012 CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012, for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y requires the amount claimed as refund of unutilized Cenvat credit to be reversed at the time of filing the refund claim but it does not require the debit to be reflected in the ST-3 return since it is illogical and unreasonable. Further, fulfilment of the condition is mandatory, then the same would result in losing the right to seek the claim. He has placed reliance on the decision dated 06.02.2017 of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. Bangalore Agro Foods and Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belapur 2015 (325) ELT 387 in support of his contention. He also relies on the decision of the Commissioner GST CE (Appeals), Chennai in OIA No. 195 to 198/2018 (CTA-I) dated 25.04.2018 in M/s. Botcode technologies LLP Vs. CGST CE, Chennai N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed as refund, in the impugned quarter itself and not while making the refund claim, leading to NIL credit balance, cannot be a reason to reject such claim. Further, in Bangalore Agro Foods (supra) it has been categorically held that the impugned condition is only procedural which cannot stand in the way of grant of substantial benefit and even in Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it has been held that the condition in question is not such that it could debar the appellant from claiming the refund. 4.2 In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is eligible for claiming the refund and for the above reasons, I set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
