TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts, cenvat credit register which are required as per the various Rules and the Notification to claim cenvat credit but inadvertently he has failed to disclose the same in the ST-3 return which is only a procedural infraction. Under the Notification as well as under the Rule, it has not been categorically provided that non-disclosure of cenvat credit in the ST-3 return will disentitle the assessee from claiming the cenvat credit if he is otherwise entitled to. Further, the cenvat credit is a beneficial legislation and it should be construed liberally so as to upheld the letter and spirit of such beneficial piece of legislation and a narrow interpretation would read down the benefit given by the legislature and defeat the very purpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total disputed amount before CESTAT Impugned O-I-A 1 ST/20667/2019-SM Jul-08 35,41,988 35,41,988 Order-in-Appeal No. 119 to 1 21/2019 dt. April 10, 2019 2 ST/20668/2019-SM ST/20668/2019-SM Aug 08 - Mar 09 20,28,897 20,28,897 For the sake of convenience, the facts of Appeal No. ST/20667/2019 are taken. Appellant is a private limited company and is a SEZ unit and is registered as a STPI unit with Software Technologies Park of India and is engaged in the export of Information Technology Software ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns filed for the period. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original to the extent of rejection of refund claim, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund to the extent of ₹ 35,41,988/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Forty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Eight only) in one appeal and ₹ 20,28,897/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Seven only) in another appeal for the period August 2008 to March 2009. Hence the present appeals. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification 5/2006. He further submitted that as per the Notification, cenvat credit in respect of inputs or input service used for providing output service which has been exported without payment of duty is allowed subject to safeguards, conditions and limitation as set out in the appendix to the Notification. The learned consultant referred to the conditions set out in appendix to the Notification and submitted that he has complied with all the conditions set out in the appendix to the Notification and accordingly is eligible for refund of cenvat credit for the impugned period. The learned consultant also referred to Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules which prescribes conditions for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-TIOL-884-CESTAT-DEL. b. M/s. Applicomp India Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore 2007-TIOL-763-CESTAT-BANG. c. M/s. Compack Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara 2005 TIOL-128-SC-CX d. M/s. Amara Raja Power Systems, M/s Amara Raja Batteries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Tirupathi 2006-TIOL-120-CESTAT-BANG. 3.1. He also submitted that the Cenvat Credit Rules which are beneficial in nature should be construed liberally so as to upheld the letter and spirit of such beneficial legislation. Learned consultant also demanded interest for the delay in sanctioning the refund. 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit if he is otherwise entitled to. Further I find that the cenvat credit is a beneficial legislation and it should be construed liberally so as to upheld the letter and spirit of such beneficial piece of legislation and a narrow interpretation would read down the benefit given by the legislature and defeat the very purpose of enacting of such beneficial legislation. Therefore, the denial of the refund only on the basis of non-disclosure of the cenvat credit in ST-3 return is not legally sustainable and therefore, I set aside the rejection of refund on this ground. Further I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has observed that the appellants have not submitted any documents to prove their contention that they have r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
