2022 (7) TMI 981

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... refund of the unutilized CENVAT credit. The refund claims were rejected by the original authority and was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence these appeals. 3. The learned counsel Shri T.R. Ramesh appeared and argued for the appellant. He submitted that in Appeal No. ST/40814/2018, the refund claim is filed for the quarter April 2016 to June 2016 and in Appeal No. ST/40815/2018, the refund claim is filed for the period July 2016 to September 2016. In the first appeal, the refund has been rejected for the reason of wrong interpretation of clause 2(g) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT). The appellant has to debit the amount which is claimed as refund before filing the refund claim as required under clause 2(h) of the said Notific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the rent is paid in advance and therefore the reason of rejection is absolutely baseless. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the issue for rejecting the refund claim in the second appeal ST/40815/2018 is with regard to the mis-interpretation of clause (g) and clause (h) as stated above. 6. The learned AR Shri Arul C. Durairaj supported the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The first issue is with regard to non-fulfillment of the conditions as required under clause 2(g) and clause 2(h) of the said Notification. The said clauses are reproduced as under:- "2(g) the amount of refund claimed shall not be more than the amount lying in balance at the end of quarter for which refund claim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ign exchange. The only ground on which the refund has been rejected is that the closing balance of Cenvat credit at the end of the quarter as per ST-3 return was 'nil' which was less than the refund amount for respective quarter. I have examined the ST-3 returns as well as the Cenvat credit account furnished by the appellant and as per the Cenvat credit amount and has also shown 'nil' in ST-3 returns filed with the Department. Further I find that the objection of the Department that the appellant has not debited the Cenvat credit account before filing the refund claim is not factually correct, in fact the appellants have debited the Cenvat credit account before filing the refund claim and the same is clearly shown in the ST-3 returns also. ....