Case Law Details
Rosy Blue India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that notification no. 27/2012/CE (NT) dated 18th June 2012 for operationalizing of rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 include debiting of the claim amount before submission of application for the same. Refund rejected for failure to furnish proof of the availability of credit till the date of write off.
Facts-
The appellant, trading internationally in diamonds and other precious stones, also claimed to have rendered service to overseas clients and having utilized ‘taxable service’ on which credit of tax under Finance Act, 1994, as permissible, was availed and, owing to absence of domestic dealings, was constrained to opt for monetization of such credit attributable to services deployed for undertaking export of services during the relevant quarter as provided for in rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The sanctioning authority, taking note of the several conditions in notification no. 27/2012/CE (NT) dated 18th June 2012 for operationalising monetisation of eligible credit under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and essentiality of paragraph 2(h) espoused in the remand order of the first appellate authority, to hold insufficiency of compliance with the said condition and rejected the claim for sanction of Rs. 51,18,655 for the three quarters. The sustaining of this rejection in the impugned order has led to this appeal before us.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
