TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of refund claim is that an assessee does not avail the dual benefit of credit as also refund of the same. It is primarily for this reason that the relevant rule read with notification in question requires debit before filing of refund claim so as to avoid double benefit to the claimant - This was also observed by the Tribunal the case of M/s. Kellogg and Andelson Management Service Pvt Ltd. Vs. CST, Chennai II [2018 (8) TMI 1680 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] . There is no dispute about the fact that services in question were exported and appellant is otherwise entitled to the refund of accumulated credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification in question - Inasmuch the books of accounts stand already debited by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it amount equivalent to the refund claimed by them. However, the said reversal was not reflected in the relevant ST-3 return for the period October,2013 to March, 2014 but the same were shown in the ST-3 return filed for the period April, 2015 to September, 2015. Accordingly, the Revenue entertained a view that the said condition 2(h) of the Notification does not stand satisfied and consequently, the appellant was not entitled to the refund. 2. In view of the foregoing, proceedings were initiated against them by way of show cause notice dated 09.06.2015, proposing to deny the refund claim. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the Original adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant with delay of more than one year. Now the question arises whether delay in debiting the amount of claimed amount can be allowed or not. In this regard, I find that it is one of the condition of the said Notification that 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. Thus, the appellant have violated the provisions of Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 as the voucher submitted by the appellant does not have any sanctity without the support of respective ledger account and statutory returns for the relevant period. Moreover, the appellant is regularly filing the refund claims and are very much aware ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim. Even in terms of said rulings, (reference to the Tribunals decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, NOIDA vs M/s. Kiwi Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 689-CESTAT, Allahabad] the debit of the account even subsequent to the date of filing of refund claim is not such a lapse so as to debar the assessee from the refund. Admittedly, such a refund claim cannot be denied on procedural ground. There is no dispute about the fact that services in question were exported and appellant is otherwise entitled to the refund of accumulated credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification in question. Reference can also be made to Tribunal s decision in the case of Synthesis Healthcare Service L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
