TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Service Tax for providing taxable services viz. Online Information & Data, Business Support Services, Development & Supply of Content Service and Information Technology Software Services. They filed refund claim of Rs. 1,85,429/- for the period April 2017 to June 2017 seeking refund of accumulated and unutilized CENVAT credit availed on various input services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) and Notification No.27/2012 dt. 18/06/2012 used by them for export of output services. The said refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order-in-Original No.6/2018 dt. 21/03/2018 in terms of Notification No.27/2012 as the appellant had not fulfilled the condition 2(h) of the said Notification. Ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issal of refund claim. He further submitted that condition of para 2(h) of Notification No.27/212 stipulates that the amount claimed as refund under Rule 5 of CCRs shall be debited by the claimant from his CENVAT Credit account at the time of making the claim whereas in the present case, the appellant did not debit the amount in their CENVAT account nor shown the same in their ST-3 returns; but reversed the same in their GSTR3B much later. In support of his submission, the learned AR relied upon the following decisions:- i. Principal Commissioner of ST Vs. RR Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. [2016(45) STR 5 (AP)] ii. Apex Company Vantage India Pvt. Ltd. [2018-TIOL-2933- CESTAT-HYD] 6. After considering the submissions of bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the cenvat credit of Rs. 1,85,429/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Nine only) to their TRAN-1 credit as input tax credit (ITC) on introduction of GST. Thus they have carried the balance credit lying in their account as on 01.07.2017 to ITC of GST. Thus they did not reverese the credit either at the time of filing the claim nor subsequently. This amounts to contravention of Para 2 (h) of notfn. 27/2012 CE (NT) and therefore on this ground the refund is not admissible. Accordingly the claim of Rs. 1,85,429/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Nine only) is rejected. 8. On verifications of the ST-3 Returns corresponding to the dates of filing of the claim, it was found that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is clear that, notification lays down that the amount claimed as refund of CENVAT amount should be debited before applying for the Refund and the appellant had not done so. They have debited the amount, but much later and thereby they violated the condition 2(h) of the notification. The Adjudicating Authority had, therefore, rejected the refund and the First Appellate Authority has upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal. I have considered the argument of the Learned Chartered Accountant of the appellant that it was a technical mistake which has been rectified by the debit entry made later. The Rule or the notification does not provide the flexibility to the officers or the Tribunal to relax condition 2(h) of the notification. ....