Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal in which the Tribunal had to decide whether the appellant was entitled to refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR).

The Tribunal noted that 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. Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal thus the instant appeal was filed.

The appellant stated that he 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 were very much available for verification.

The Tribunal quoted the relevant para in the judgment of Suretax Prophylactics India (P) Ltd. v. CCE, (2020) 116 Taxmann.com 566 wherein the Karnataka High Court had ruled,

“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.”

The Tribunal was of the opinion that claim of the appellant had 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 was well within time. However, as regards the reversal 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. Thus, the Tribunal deemed 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 Tribunal allowed the appeal by the way of remand.[Zafin Software Centre Of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. Commr. Of CT & CE, 2021 SCC OnLine CESTAT 2614, decided on 12-10-2021]


Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.