2020 (1) TMI 844

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 2(h) of the Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a private limited company and are engaged in rendering various services in relation to information technology and is exporting the said services overseas and receiving consideration in convertible foreign exchange. During the disputed period, the appellant exported various taxable services for the purpose of providing and exporting taxable output service, the appellant inter alia received various input services from several service providers on which input services tax was paid. As the appellants were unable to utilize the CENVAT credit, they filed the refund claim of unutilized CENVAT credit of Rs. 19,18,600/- in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pliance with the requirement of law. He further submitted that the denial of refund of Rs. 2,07,499/- was on the grounds which were not germane to the SCN. He also submitted that both the authorities have not appreciated the fact that at the time of refund, eligibility to CENVAT credit cannot be questioned. He further submitted that Rule 5 of CCR clearly provides that the appellant can claim refund of unutilized CENVAT credit and at the time of refund, eligibility of the credit cannot be questioned. In support of this, he relied upon the decision in the case of K Line Ship Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST, Mumbai, 2017-TIOL-2406-CESTAT-MUM. He further submitted that the Department had not questioned in the input services and its utilizat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., I hold that it is not open to the Department to examine the eligibility of CENVAT credit while adjudicating the refund claim application, since in such matters of admissibility, the Department has mandated to take recourse under Rule 14 of the CCR. Further, the rejection of entire refund claims only on the ground of violation of Condition 2H of Notification No. 27/2012 is also not sustainable in law. Since, the appellants have debited the CENVAT account but only after filing the refund claim. Debiting the CENVAT account subsequent to the filing of the refund claim is only a procedural violation which cannot defeat the substantive right of the appellant to claim refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Further, In view of the decision of Kony Lab....