TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stainable in law. Since, the appellants have debited the CENVAT account but only after filing the refund claim. Debiting the CENVAT account subsequent to the filing of the refund claim is only a procedural violation which cannot defeat the substantive right of the appellant to claim refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Refund allowed along with interest on delayed refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 21044 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 20001/2020 - Dated:- 2-1-2020 - HON BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Anirudha R J Nayak, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Devarajan, Joint Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the SCN and the amount on this aspect was to the tune of ₹ 7,89,434/-. Accordingly, the SCN proposed to reject the refund application. After following the due process, the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax vide OIO dated 30.06.2017 rejected the entire refund claim on the ground that the appellant was not eligible to credit of ₹ 2,07,499/- and that proof of debit of the amount was not submitted. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the appeal of the appellant. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e further submitted that it is an admitted fact that they have filed the revised Return in which they have debited the CENVAT account to the extent of refund claim and the same has been accepted by the Commissioner (A). He further submitted that this is only a procedural violation and the substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural and technical violations. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Kony Labs IT Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Hyderabad-IV, 2017 (3) GSTL 475 (Tri. Hyd.) Ingersoll Rand Technologies and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Bangalore- (Final Order No. 21023-21025/2019) 5. On the other hand, learned AR defended the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
