Tribunal grants refund of erroneously sanctioned amount, criticizes rejection on technical grounds

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to reject the refund of erroneously sanctioned amount of Rs. 2,48,383/- along with interest. The Tribunal criticized the rejection on technical grounds, finding the appellant eligible for the refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that the appellant met the requirements under Rule 4(7) and Rule 9, granting consequential reliefs and setting aside the impugned order.

---

---

Issues:
Refund of erroneously sanctioned amount - Recovery along with interest.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the Commissioner (Appeals) order where the refund of Rs. 2,48,383/- was sanctioned by the lower authority but later deemed erroneous and liable for recovery with interest. The appellant, registered under ITSS, filed a refund claim of Rs. 9,34,287/- under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized CENVAT credit on exported ITSS without service tax payment. The original authority sanctioned Rs. 8,00,134/- but rejected Rs. 1,34,154/-. The Department challenged the refund of Rs. 2,24,743/- and Rs. 23,640/- related to specific invoices.

The appellant argued that the impugned order was legally unsustainable, rejecting the refund on technical grounds. They claimed eligibility for Rs. 2,43,383/- CENVAT credit refunded under Rule 5 of CCR. The appellant contended that credit is available after payment under Rule 4(7) and Rule 9 of CCR, citing challan payments as valid documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted eligibility for one invoice but limited it to the payment quarter, which the appellant challenged citing Rule 9 and Rule 4(7). The appellant argued that denial based on technicalities was improper, citing legal precedents.

The AR defended the impugned order, but the Tribunal found no fault in the original authority's refund decision. The Tribunal held that the appellant met Rule 4(7) and Rule 9 requirements, criticizing the Commissioner (Appeals) for rejecting the refund on technicalities despite acknowledging eligibility. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential reliefs. The operative portion of the order was pronounced on 09/05/2018.

---