TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d solely on a technical basis - That apart, the fact that Notification No.27/12 has been held to propound an incorrect condition by this Court as well as by the CESTAT ought to have merited consideration with the authority. Instead he does not advert to this aspect of the matter at all. The impugned order is wholly incorrect in law and is liable to be set aside - Petition allowed. - Honourable Dr.Justice Anita Sumanth For the Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Reddy For the Respondent : Mr.K.Umesh Rao ORDER A reading of the trajectory of events that have transpired in this matter would reveal the tortured attempts by the Assessee and the Department, the former seeking to avail CENVAT credit that was available to it and the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner's application was returned by the authority citing the condition under Notification No.27/2012, this petitioner being more compliant sought to adopt other measures to obtain the relief. 6. In the cases of other assessees they approached the Courts / authorities directly in BNP Paribas Global Securities Operations Private Limited v The Assistant Commissioner of GST Central Excise (MANU/TN/3063/2021), G lobal Analytics India Pvt ltd vs The Commissioner of G.S.T Central Excise [2019 (7) TMI 1185], Zamil Steel Engineering India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of CGST Central Excise [2020 (5) TMI 611], Mysy Tech India Private Limited v The Commissioner of GST CE [Appeals-II] [2020 (3) TMI 754] and Sundaram Business Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confusion caused thus far, the petitioner while not challenging the order of the Appellate Commissioner, makes a further representation on 28.08.2020. Inter-alia it cites the decision of this Court and of the CESTAT referred to paragraph 6 of this order, praying that its application for refund be considered, excluding the time spent before the GST authorities, as that was clearly a wrong forum. The impugned order has been passed on 03.11.2010 on the sole ground that, as the order of the first appellate authority dated 30.07.2020 has attained finality, the question of refund does not arise. 11. This order is patently erroneous on several grounds. Firstly, the eligibility of the petitioner to refund on a substantive basis has itself, never ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
