TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompliances with the condition at paragraph 2(h) since post G.S.T., the scenario is different than the one prevailing prior to G.S.T. regime. Otherwise, it would become an impossible task for an assessee, more so when the filing of ST-3 returns itself was done away with. The denial of refund is not in accordance with law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 42172, 42435 of 2018 - Final Order Nos. 40942-40943/2019 - Dated:- 22-7-2019 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. Rajaram R., Advocate for the Appellant Shri. S. Govindarajan, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER By this appeal, the assessee is questioni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017. 3.3 The appellant seriously pursued the matter by filing appeals against the orders of rejection vide Orders-in-Original (supra), but however, the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai, having rejected the appellant s claims vide impugned Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 440/2018 (CTA-II) dated 28.09.2018 and 378/2018 (CTA-II) dated 30.07.2018, the present appeals are filed by the assessee. 4.1 Ld. Advocate for the appellant, reiterating the arguments advanced before the lower authorities, also contended as under : (i) The authorities below did not consider in proper perspective the explanation of the assessee in their respective orders; (ii) During the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -I 2017 (8) T.M.I. 218 CESTAT Mumbai; (ii) Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Belapur 2015 (10) T.M.I. 882 CESTAT Mumbai; (iii) Kopran Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Mumbai-II 2016 (11) T.M.I. 419 CESTAT Mumbai; (iv) Kellogg and Andelson Management Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Chennai 2018-TIOL-1774-CESTAT-MAD; 5. Per contra, Ld. AR for the Revenue, opposing the contentions of the Ld. Advocate, however supported the findings of the lower authorities. He contended that the condition at paragraph 2(h) is a mandatory one and by non-fulfilment of the same, the appellant would become ineligible for claiming the refund. He also relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
