2025 (9) TMI 1406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case are that the appellant is engaged in software development and is provider of "Information Technology Software Services". The appellant availed cenvat credit of input service used in output services exported; during the period October 2016 to December 2016, the appellant filed refund in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for refund of cenvat credit of Rs. 7,78,883/ on 30.06.2017 availed on input services used in output services exported. The appellant withdrew the refund of Rs. 43,347/-, the refund filed comes to Rs. 7,35,536; the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund of Rs. 1,80,134/ and rejected refund claim of Rs. 5,98,749/-. In-fact the appellant withdrew refund of Rs. 43,347/- and actual refund rejected comes to Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....claim are not in dispute. For this submissions, he has relied upon the following judgments: i) Transformers & Electricals Kerala Ltd. Vs. CC 1975 (78) ELT 682 (T). ii) Webel Telematik Ltd. Vs. CC 1995 (80) ELT 617 (T). 5. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that as per the Rule 7 and 7B of Service Tax Rules, the appellant is required to file the revised ST-3 Return electronically only which has not been done in this case. He further submits that the appellant filed the refund claim on 30.6.2017 and after 20 days of filing of the refund, he has filed the revised return manually in order to cover up certain invoices which are time barred. He further submits that in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Indore reported in 2024 (20) Centax 540 (Tri.-Del). 6. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in this case, the original return was filed on 26.04.2017 electronically and thereafter the refund was filed on 30.06.2017 and revised return was filed manually on 20.07.2017 which is not permitted in the law and therefore, both the authorities have correctly held that revised return cannot be considered as legally filed. Further, I find that the original return was not amended before filing the refund and the original return has become final unless modified by appropriate proceedings. Further, I find that the decision of Lupin ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e questioned of negatived in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act, its claim for refund could not have been negated. As was observed by the Supreme Court in ITC Limited, a self-assessed return also amounts to an assessment and unless it is varied or modified in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant statute, the same cannot possibly be questioned in refund proceedings. As the Supreme Court had held in the decisions aforenoted, the authority while considering an application for grant of refund neither sits in appeal nor is it entitled to review an assessment deemed to have been made. In fact, the Supreme Court in ITC Limited had described refund proceedings to be akin to execution proceedings 1....