2019 (4) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... law, the refund sanctioning authority rejected the refund claim on various grounds. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned consultant Shri R. Viswanathan explained the various grounds on which the refund has been rejected, which are detailed below:- (i) An amount of Rs. 20,109/- has been rejected in respect of Car Parking Charges paid by the appellant. He submitted that Car Parking Services were availed by the appellant in order to facilitate the parking of cars within the appellant's premises. He relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. BCH Electric Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi reported in 2013 TMI 551 CESTAT NEW Delhi. (ii) An amo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....leging that the appellant has not debited the credit before filing the refund claim. In fact, the appellant has debited the credit on 31.03.2016 and a revised ST-3 return was filed. The notification does not state that the appellant has to reflect the same in the ST-3 returns. It is sufficient, if the appellant debits the credit before the refund claim. The condition has been satisfied and, therefore, the rejection on this ground is incorrect. (v) The amount of Rs. 2,41,781/- has been rejected alleging that at a time of filing the refund claim, the appellant has no balance in their Cenvat Credit account. It is submitted by the learned consultant that after debiting Cenvat account on 31.03.2016, the ST-3 returns were filed. Only after suc....