AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The only issue that arises for my consideration in this case is, whether the appellant is entitled for refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR)?
Heard Shri Rajeev, learned Consultant for the appellant and Shri P.Gopakumar, learned Authorized Representative for the Respondent.
The Adjudicating Authority had rejected the refund claim mainly on the ground that the appellant had not debited the amount claimed as refund from their CENVAT credit account, which according to the said authority, was in violation of Para 2(h) of Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. The said order was appealed against, but the Commissioner (Appeals), Kochi, vide impugned order dated 25.03.2019 dismissed the appeal and hence the appellant is before this Forum.
It is the case of the appellant that the appellant, in fact, had debited the amount claimed as refund in its Returns filed for the period ended 30.06.2017 and the said ST-3 Returns is very much available for verification. Rebutting the contentions of the appellant, the Revenue while supporting the findings of lower authorities, have also placed reliance on orders of learned Hyderabad Bench as well as this Bench in the following case laws:
(i) Apex CO Vantage India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCT, Rangareddy-GST, 2018 (6) TMI 814- CESTAT Hyderabad.
(ii) Wisdomleaf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCT, Bangalore North, 2019 (6) TMI 209- CESTAT Bangalore.
Wherein, according to the Revenue, on an identical set of facts, the Tribunals have not accepted the contentions of the appellant and have confirmed the rejection of refund. In his rejoinder, learned consultant appearing for the assessee has relied upon the subsequent order of this Bench in the case of Chariot International Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCT, Bengaluru (Final Order No.20169 / 2021) and relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Suretax Prophylactics India (P) Ltd. Vs CCE- (2020) 116 Taxmann.com 566 (Karnataka) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has ruled in favour of the tax payer.
I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the decisions relied upon by both sides. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above case relied upon by the appellant, as regards the time limit is concerned, has held as under:
"In other words, time limit has to be computed from the last date of the last month of the quarter which would be the relevant date for the purposes of examining if the claim is filed within the limitation prescribed under Section 11-B or otherwise."
It is the case of the appellant that the claim of the appellant has been filed before the expiry of the quarter in which one year period from the last date of receipt of falls and accordingly the applications for refund is well within time. But, however, as regards the reversal, as I could gather from the records, the adjudicating officer had no chance of verifying the veracity of the appellant's claim vis-à-vis ST-3 Returns in the subsequent period wherein the said reversal was claimed to have been made.
In view of the above, I deem it proper to remand the case for the file of adjudicating authority before whom the appellant shall furnish its ST-3 Returns for the subsequent period wherein the said reversal is reflected. The Adjudicating Authority shall, if the reversal is available, consider the same as a y compliance of Rule 2(h) of Notification ibid and then process the refund in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by way of remand with the above directions.
(Order pronounced in Open Court on 07/10/2021.)