TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the category of Business Auxiliary Service and are availing the facility of cenvat credit under the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Appellant filed a refund claim dt. 31/10/2016 for refund of unutilised cenvat credit of service tax amounting to Rs. 3,25,927/- availed on input services for the period October 2015 to December 2015 under the provisions of Notification No.27/2012 CE(NT) dt. 18/06/2012 issued in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Thereafter appellant received a show-cause notice from Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax dt. 16/01/2017 proposing to deny refund of unutilised cenvat credit. Appellant filed detailed justification for each of the grounds raised in the show-cause notice along with documentary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bit condition in the Notification No.27/2012 CE is to ensure that after encashment of the refund, the applicant does not continue to enjoy the cenvat credit i.e. a dual benefit of credit and refund should not be claimed and in the present case, no authority alleged or established that the appellant has claimed any dual benefit of credit and/or refund. He further submitted that the appellant has already excess debit of Rs. 7,41,358/- while filing the refund of the subject period. He also submitted that this amount of refund has not been transitioned in to GST regime. He further submitted both the authorities have ignored the debit made in the cenvat register of the appellant which has been certified by the statutory auditor. He also submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this condition, the appellant produced evidences in the form of cenvat ledger, ST3 returns, reconciliation cenvat credit between accounts and ST3 returns, Chartered Accountant certificate but both the authorities did not examine these documents carefully and conveniently rejected the refund by merely observing that appellant was not eligible for the service tax refund without due consideration of the debit evidences in the cenvat ledger accounts of the appellant. Further I find that appellant has proved before me also by way of documentary evidences on record that there was excess debit of Rs. 7,41,358/- during immediately previous period and hence there was no need to debit it again during the subject period. This excess reversal has not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be taken, the same are permitted to be utilised and when the same is not possible there is provision for grant of refund or rebate. Without questioning the credit taken, the eligibility to rebate cannot be questioned." 6. Further I find that same officer granted refund for immediate past period based on debit in ledger accounts but surprisingly failed to adopt the consistent stand for the impugned period. I also find that the original authority had erred in not appreciating the cenvat ledger account which showed a positive balance of Rs. 21,51,584/- at the time of filing the refund application for the subject period and erroneously concluded that the amount lying in balance is only Rs. 2,42,312/-. In view of my discussion, I hold t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is clear that the Explanation has nothing to do with the postponement of the date from which interest becomes payable under Section 11BB of the Act. Manifestly, interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable, if on an expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded. Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said Section becomes payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act and that the said Explanation does not have any bearing or connection with the date from which interest under Section 11BB ....