Tribunal grants cenvat credit on services, accepts refund claim date. Commissioner's decision overturned.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing cenvat credit on "House Keeping Services" based on judicial precedence. Additionally, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's refund claim date of 27.06.2017, attributing the delay to the Department's processing issues rather than the appellant's filing. The rejection of the claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, granting the appellant consequential benefits. The judgment highlighted adherence to legal provisions and recognized the appellant's compliance with regulations.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of cenvat credit on "House Keeping Services"
2. Refund of unutilized input service credit under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012

Analysis:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on "House Keeping Services":
The appellant contended that denial of cenvat credit on "House Keeping Services" was unjustified. The Ld. Consultant argued that the denial should not stand based on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in a specific case. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. Consultant, citing judicial precedence, and ruled in favor of the appellant on this issue.

2. Refund Claim Date Dispute:
Regarding the date of filing the refund claim, the appellant claimed to have submitted the application on 27.06.2017, while the authorities maintained that it was filed on 12.07.2017. The appellant explained the delay as being due to the Department's reorganization and relocation on account of GST migration. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including a Legacy Cell letter acknowledging the appellant's claim date as 27.06.2017. It noted the lack of findings on non-compliance with Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 by the lower authorities and concluded that the delay was attributable to the Department's processing rather than the appellant's filing. The Tribunal found the rejection of the claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's contentions on both issues, ruling in favor of granting the cenvat credit on "House Keeping Services" and accepting the refund claim date as per the appellant's submission. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal provisions and acknowledged the appellant's compliance with the relevant regulations.

---