Icertis Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of (Appeals-II) (CESTAT Mumbai)
The appellant, a service provider exporting services classified as Business Support Service and Business Auxiliary Service, accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) as a result of these exports. The appellant filed and received sanctions for the refund of the accumulated Cenvat balance under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Following the sanction of the initial refund, the appellant realized that they had inadvertently failed to claim the refund for the Swatch Bharat Cess (SBC) paid on the same input services. Consequently, the appellant filed two supplementary refund applications to claim the SBC amount.
The original authority rejected these supplementary claims on the grounds that the appellant had failed to submit a declaration prior to the export of services, as required by Notification No. 39/2012. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original authority’s finding regarding the declaration but rejected the supplementary refund applications by holding that the claimant cannot file a second claim application for the same period for which a refund had already been sanctioned.
The appellant then filed an appeal before the CESTAT Mumbai. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order and allowed the appeal, directing the refund of the SBC. The CESTAT held that the claim for SBC was a supplementary claim, and there is no bar under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules that prevents an applicant from filing two refund claims for the same period.
