{"id":242735,"date":"2021-01-23T16:00:25","date_gmt":"2021-01-23T10:30:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=242735"},"modified":"2021-01-23T15:13:03","modified_gmt":"2021-01-23T09:43:03","slug":"cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/","title":{"rendered":"CESTAT | Review order is a gross violation of legal principle; Tribunal allows appeal of refund claim"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT):<\/strong> Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim filed by the appellant had been dismissed as time-barred.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The appellant had filed a refund claim for the period April-June, 2012. The said refund was entertained and was rejected on 30-10-2015. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) the claim was allowed. Further, the appellant had made request for sanctioning of refund claim on 9-8-2016 but the Revenue had filed appeal against the order of sanctioning of refund claim on 22-3-2016 and this Tribunal dismissed of appeal filed by the Revenue. Thereafter, on persuasion by the department, the appellant had again filed application for sanctioning of refund claim on 13-2-2018 (who was forced to file). The said application was entertained, the refund claim was allowed on 9-04-2018 by the adjudicating authority. Thereafter, the Commissioner had reviewed the order of sanctioning the refund claim on 12-7-2018. The department had filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the refund filed by the appellant was time-barred by limitation by order dated 28-11-2018, thus the instant appeal was filed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The counsel for the appellant had submitted that as the Revenue continued to contest the issue before this Tribunal and this Tribunal had passed final order dated 11-3-2019 and he also submitted that they had filed refund claim initially on 29-6-2012 within the period of limitation and further after the order of this Tribunal, suo-moto the department was required to sanction the refund claim to the appellant but on the persuasion of the department, the appellant was forced to file refund claim again which was also within one year of the order of this Tribunal.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Tribunal allowed the appeal and observed that it was fact on record that initially the refund claim was filed on 29-6-2012, the same was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 21-3-2016, instead of sanctioning the refund claim, the revenue preferred to file appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal held that it was the duty of the Revenue that after the order of this Tribunal, they were required to refund sou moto within 3 months from 1-3-2017 but instead of doing so, the appellant was forced to file refund claim again which was filed on 13-2-2018. The departmental officer did not stop there; they reviewed the order of the adjudicating authority sanctioning the refund and held that the refund claim was barred by limitation without any basis to drag the appellant in unnecessary litigation. The said act of the department cannot be appreciated.[AMP Capital Advisors (India) (P) Ltd. v. Commr. Of CGST, Appeal No.ST\/60296 of 2019-ST, decided on 13-01-2021]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":201689,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[8991,29785,38488,43922],"class_list":["post-242735","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-appeal","tag-law","tag-refund-claim","tag-review-order"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>CESTAT | Review order is a gross violation of legal principle; Tribunal allows appeal of refund claim | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CESTAT | Review order is a gross violation of legal principle; Tribunal allows appeal of refund claim\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-01-23T10:30:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/\",\"name\":\"CESTAT | Review order is a gross violation of legal principle; Tribunal allows appeal of refund claim | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-01-23T10:30:25+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CESTAT | Review order is a gross violation of legal principle; Tribunal allows appeal of refund claim\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CESTAT | Review order is a gross violation of legal principle; Tribunal allows appeal of refund claim | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CESTAT | Review order is a gross violation of legal principle; Tribunal allows appeal of refund claim","og_description":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-01-23T10:30:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/","name":"CESTAT | Review order is a gross violation of legal principle; Tribunal allows appeal of refund claim | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","datePublished":"2021-01-23T10:30:25+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/23\/cestat-review-order-is-a-gross-violation-of-legal-principle-tribunal-allows-appeal-of-refund-claim\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CESTAT | Review order is a gross violation of legal principle; Tribunal allows appeal of refund claim"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":240323,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/cestat-refund-claim-was-to-be-given-directly-to-the-service-recipient-tribunal-allows-appeal-holding-that-the-refund-claim-was-not-hit-by-barred-of-unjust-enrichment\/","url_meta":{"origin":242735,"position":0},"title":"CESTAT | Refund claim was to be given directly to the service recipient; Tribunal allows appeal holding that the refund claim was not hit by barred of unjust enrichment","author":"Editor","date":"December 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal against the order of dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant was engaged in providing works contract service to Garrison Engineers (MES) a unit of Department in the Ministry of Defense who was not engaged\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":280868,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/03\/refund-under-rule-5-refund-under-section-11b-within-ambit-section-bb-interest-payable-delay-sanctioning-refund-under-rule-5-legal-new-legal-research-updates-cestat-cenvat-credit-rules\/","url_meta":{"origin":242735,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Commissioner ought to have followed Supreme Court&#8217;s Ranbaxy Laboratories verdict\u2019; CESTAT grants interest on delayed sanction of Refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules","author":"Editor","date":"January 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhen series of decisions of Constitutional Courts are available then the Principle of Judicial discipline cast a duty on me to follow those and nothing else\u201d, observed the Tribunal.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"CESTAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image99.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":242265,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/15\/cestat-demand-of-service-tax-for-an-extended-period-of-limitation-along-with-interest-dropped-tribunal-allows-appeal\/","url_meta":{"origin":242735,"position":2},"title":"CESTAT | Demand of service tax for an extended period of limitation along with interest dropped; Tribunal allows appeal","author":"Editor","date":"January 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the rejection of a refund claim. Initially, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant for non-payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism for a commission paid to the foreign-based commission\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":239365,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/19\/cestat-interest-on-delayed-refund-under-the-provisions-of-s-27a-of-customs-act-1962-does-not-arise-tribunal-allows-appeal\/","url_meta":{"origin":242735,"position":3},"title":"CESTAT | Interest on delayed refund under the provisions of S. 27A of Customs Act, 1962 does not arise; Tribunal allows appeal","author":"Editor","date":"November 19, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the judgment of Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant imported Benzothiazole through Visakhapatnam Port declaring an assessable value of US$ 3.5 per Kg being the transaction value. The Assistant Commissioner enhanced\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243541,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/08\/cestat-at-the-time-of-entertaining-the-refund-claim-the-issue-of-admissibility-of-the-cenvat-credit-cannot-be-raised-tribunal-allows-appeal\/","url_meta":{"origin":242735,"position":4},"title":"CESTAT | \u201cAt the time of entertaining the refund claim, the issue of admissibility of the CENVAT credit cannot be raised\u201d: Tribunal allows appeal","author":"Editor","date":"February 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the impugned orders wherein their refund claim lying unutilized in their cenvat credit account was denied to the appellant on the ground that the service on which they are taken the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":226226,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/26\/cestat-tribunal-allows-refund-of-unutilised-cenvat-credit-under-rule-5-of-cenvat-credit-rules\/","url_meta":{"origin":242735,"position":5},"title":"CESTAT | Tribunal allows refund of unutilised Cenvat credit under Rule 5\u00a0 of Cenvat Credit Rules","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 26, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P. Dinesha (Judicial Member), allowed an appeal filed challenging the denial of refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). The appellant who was a provider of \u201cBusiness Support Services\u201d had filed an application for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242735","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=242735"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242735\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/201689"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}