TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riginal was upheld thereby denying the refund to the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacturing and export of goods of 'Crystal and Oscillators' and they are 100% EOU. The appellant filed a refund claim towards unutilized CENVAT credit on account of export amounting to Rs. 60,12,607/- on 27.06.2017 for the quarter ending October 2016-December 2016 in terms of Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 read with Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The appellant had also debited the refund claim amount in their ER-2 Returns for June 2017 in compliance with Para 2(h) of the Notification No 27/2012 amounting to Rs. 60,12,607/-. The said refund was approved by the Assista....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the same has been passed without considering the submissions of the appellants and without considering the judicial precedents. He further submitted that the impugned order has ignored the fact that the introduction of new law always leads to some technical hiccups and such difficulties should be smoothly addressed without affecting the rights of the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant filed refund claim in Form-A under Rule 5 of CCR 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) which is computed as under: Particulars Amount Refund as per formula 'A' Rs. 60,12,607/- Balance CENVAT credit available as on last day of quarter (31.12.2016) B Rs. 47.67.628/- Balance of CENVAT credit available on the date of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise Act read with Section 142(5) of CGST Act 2017 and then fresh claim does not have any connection with the previous refund claim. He further submitted that in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has admitted that the appellant was required to debit an amount of Rs. 47,67,628/- whereas they have debited Rs. 60,12,607/- during June 2017 due to which there is an excess debit of Rs. 12,44,979/-. He further submitted that once the Commissioner (Appeals) has admitted the fact of excess debit then he should not have denied the refund by resorting to the provision of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act as per which any claim of refund is rejected stands lapsed. He further submitted that this ground for rejection was never r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount in their CENVAT credit account and on being brought to the notice of the Department, the Departmental authorities themselves advised the appellant to file a claim of refund. It was held that denial of refund claim or excess amount paid on account of clerical error is unjustified. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that it is not disputed that the appellant debited an amount of Rs. 60,12,607/- which resulted in excess debit of Rs. 12,44,979/-. Further, I find that the appellant has filed the present refund claim under Section 11B and not under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that no refund shall be allowed of any amount of CENVAT credit where the balance of the said amount as on the appointed day has been carried forward under this Act." "142(5) Every claim filed by a person after the appointment day for refund of tax paid under the existing law in respect of services not provided shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944.) 6.1. Further, I find that Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2017 restricted the amount of Rs. 12,56,1....