TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 699
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax department for providing taxable service under the category of 'Information Technology Software Services". They were availing the facility of cenvat credit in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As such on services being exported, they were entitled to refund of such accumulated credit. In terms of Rule 5 of said Rules read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012, the appellant was required to debit the cenvat credit from their Cenvat Credit account at the time of filing of refund application. The appellant submitted a voucher dated 05.03.2014 indicating reversal of credit amount equivalent to the refund claimed by them. However, the said reversal was not reflected in the relevant ST-3 return for the period October....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m. The said reversal was required to be reflected in relevant ST 3 return for the period October, 2013 to March, 2014 as well as in their Cenvat account register but the same was reflected in the ST-3 return and Cenvat account register for the period April, 2015 to September, 2015 i.e. after the lapse of more than one year which has also been accepted by the appellant themselves in their reply. I have perused the Cenvat Account register as well as ST-3 return for the period April, 2015 to September, 2015 of the appellant which confirms that the amount in question has been debited by the appellant with delay of more than one year. Now the question arises whether delay in debiting the amount of claimed amount can be allowed or not. In this re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imant. This was also observed by the Tribunal the case of M/s. Kellogg and Andelson Management Service Pvt Ltd. Vs. CST, Chennai II [2018 (8) TMI 1680-CESTAT Chennai]. Though the learned advocate has drawn my attention to various other decisions of the Tribunal laying down that even subsequent debit of the books of account is a sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Notification but I note that the said rulings are strictly not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the appellant had admittedly debited their credit account before filing of their refund claim. Even in terms of said rulings, (reference to the Tribunals' decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, NOIDA vs M/s. Kiwi Technologies India Pvt....