Case Law Details
Radius Corporate Solutions (India) Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax VII (CESTAT Mumbai)
Though none appeared on behalf of the appellant to advance arguments in support of their challenge to order-in-appeal no. MKK/207/RGD-APP/2018-19 dated 30th August 2018 of Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Raigad, the appeal is taken up, with the assistance of Learned Authorised Representative, for disposal of the limited prayer on the ‘typographical/clerical error’ that the first appellate authority declined to rectify with severe repercussions to them.
2. The appellant, claiming to be a provider of services that are exported from the country, sought refund of accumulated CENVAT credit of Rs. 58,73,379/-, Rs. 191,93,812/- and Rs. 33,81,099/- for April to June 2016, July to September 2016 and October to December 2016 respectively totaling ` 111,68,281/-. The original authority, while sanctioning refund of ` 61,81,920/-, rejected claims for Rs. 18,11,047/-, Rs. 17,58,356/- and Rs. 14,69,599/- in the three quarters totaling ` 49,86,362/- which was also directed to be recovered along with interest thereon. The first appellate authority, after considering the several claims in the appeal filed by the assessee, re-determined the eligibility but, while allowing further part of the claim to the extent of ₹ 45,94,327, did not elaborate upon exclusion of ₹ 3,92,035.
3. It is pointed out in the appeal memorandum that the first appellate authority, instead of specifying that the consequence of his findings was allowing of the appeal to the extent of Rs. 49,86,362/-, held as ineligible by the original authority, erred in stating it to be ₹ 45,94,327 for which the appellant had, vide, letter dated 15th January 2019, sought the intervention of the office of the appellate authority to set right. Instead, vide their letter dated 21st January 2019, intimating that elapse of close to six months, the said office pleaded their helplessness in the matter. The refund releasing authority, in order dated 31st January 2019, did not consider it appropriate for the differential amount to be disbursed prompting this appeal for setting right the order of the first appellate authority.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
