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

.... Brief facts are that the appellants are providing Consulting Engineering and Information Technology Software Service. They filed refund claim for Rs. 8,54,696/- for the period Apr.'15 to Mar.'16 on 21.01.2017 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for refund of unutilized Cenvat credit. After due process of law, the refund sanctioning authority rejected the refund claim on various grounds. In ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ltant submitted that the Range authority did not seek for furnishing of the documents. The appellant is willing and ready to furnish necessary documents to prove the eligibility of credit. (iii) He submitted that an amount of Rs. 5,76,763/- for the period from Apr.'15 to Dec.'15 is held as time-barred by the adjudicating authority, which is incorrect. He explained that the appellant is raising in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o erroneous approach taken by the authorities below. (iv) An amount of Rs. 2,41,781/- has been rejected as stated in para 12 (c) of Order-in-Original alleging 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ected the refund claim stating this reason. He relied on the decision in the case of M/s. Synthesis Healthcare Services LLP Vs Commissioner of GST & CE [Chennai-South] vide Final Order No.40198/2019, dated 18.01.2019. 3. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that most of the contentions raised ....