TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ST-3 returns also - Further, the respondent while rejecting the refund claims has not properly appreciated the condition/limitation envisaged in paragraphs 2(g) and 2(h) in Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dt. 18/06/2012. The said paragraph only provides that the amount of refund claim shall not be more than the amount lies in the cenvat credit account at the end of the quarter for which the claim is filed or at the time of filing of refund claim, whichever is less. This condition has been interpreted out of context by the respondent in the impugned order and the respondent has erred in not appreciating the facts as also the condition envisaged in Notification No.27/2012. Interest on delayed refund - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il 2017 to June 2017 3,62,052/- 3,62,052/- January 2017 to March 2017 5,89,451/- 5,89,451/- 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a private limited company and registered as 100% EOU under the Foreign Trade Policy. The appellant is in the business of rendering services of medical transcription for hospitals situated outside India and is registered as service provider under the category of Business Auxiliary Service under the Finance Act, 1994 read with Service Tax Rules, 1994. For rendering the export of service, appellant is receiving input services on which service tax has been charged and paid and thereafter ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.27/2012, as per paragraph 2(h), for refund of credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the applicant is required to debit the amount claimed as refund from the Cenvat Credit at the time of making the claim and in the present case, the appellant have debited the cenvat credit account and the same has been recorded in the Order-in-Original also. He further submitted that the appellant has submitted the proof of reversal of cenvat credit also. He further submitted that from the copy of ST3 returns filed before the original authority, it is evident that the entire cenvat credit availed for each of the month has been reversed for the respective quarter. He further submitted that the respondent has not properly understood the cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d claims have been rejected. 2(g) the amount of refund claimed shall not be more than the amount lying in balance at the end of quarter for which refund claim is being made or at the time of filing of the refund claim, whichever is less. 2(h) the amount that is claimed as refund under rule 5 of the said rules shall be debited by the claimant from his CENVAT credit account at the time of making the claim. 6.2. Further I find that there is no dispute with regard to the export of service and the receipt of foreign exchange. The only ground on which the refund has been rejected is that the closing balance of cenvat credit at the end of the quarter as per ST-3 return was nil which was less than the refund amount for respective quart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discussion above, I set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeals of the appellant. 7. As far as appellant s claim for interest on delayed refund is concerned, the issue has been settled by various decisions cited supra. Hence by following the ratio of the above said decisions, mainly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that interest on delayed refund is payable under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the expiry of period of three months from the date of receipt of application under Section 11B(1) ibid and not from the date of order of refund or Appellate Order allowing such refund, I hold that the appellant is entitled for the interest as per the Apex Court decision in Ranbaxy Laborator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
