2018 (8) TMI 611

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules r/w Notification No.27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012. They had filed a refund claim before the Original Authority which was rejected on three grounds. (a) That as per the Condition No. 2(g) of the notification, the amount of refund claim cannot be more than the amount lying in balance at the end of the quarter for which the refund claim is being made or at the time of filing of the refund claim, whichever is less. On the date of filing of refund claim, respondents had no credit balance in their books of accounts. (b) Condition No. 2(h) of the notification stipulates that the amount of credit that is claimed as refund under Rule 5 of the said Rules shall be debited by the claimant at the ti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the substantive benefit cannot be denied on technical grounds. So the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed refund of CENVAT credit for the period April, 2012 to March, 2015. 4. The Revenue is aggrieved by this Order of first appellate authority and appealed on the following grounds. (1) Assessee had irregularly availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,38,92,116/- as per the audit report and when pointed out, they had reversed this amount in the month of February, 2016. Therefore on 31.03.2016 amount of credit available in their balance is zero (0). (2) Condition 2(g) of notification stipulates that amount of refund claim shall not be more than the amount lying in the balance at the end of the quarter for which the refund claim is being ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....holding that the notification does not prescribe the time limit. Therefore, the Revenue prayed that Order-in-Appeal may be set aside and the refund application must be set aside. 6. During personal hearing, Learned Departmental Representative reiterated the above arguments and asserted that the refund is not sanctionable on merits as well as the question of time limit. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted a copy of their letter dated 11.04.2016 to the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ongole, in which it was explained that they met the Range Superintendent and asked him about the procedures for refund as they were new to the process. When they filed the refund claim they were under the bona fide impression that the reversal of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onditions, safeguards, limitations, etc, is not given to either Quasi Judicial Authorities or to the officers. They are bound by these notifications as they are drafted. The first appellate authority has erred in holding that the Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules does not prescribe any conditions or restrictions. In fact, it does delegate the power of deciding these conditions to the Board. The first appellate authority or any other Quasi Judicial Authority has no right to amend or modify the conditions of the notifications even if it is his opinion that the conditions or notifications are unreasonable or are not conducive to promote the exports from India. Unfortunately the first appellate authority took this position and decided to relax ....