Case Law Details
M/s. Inspirage Software Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner GST & CCE (CESTAT Chennai)
The adjudicating authority has rejected the appellant’s claim of it having made the refund claim on 27.06.2017. The first appellate authority has also concluded the date of filing of the refund claim was 12.07.2017 only as against which the appellant contends that there was an attempt to file the refund claim on 27.06.2017 but, the said application was accepted only on 12.07.2017 after being advised by the Assistant Commissioner to wait for some time on account of Revenue Offices being re-located on account of migration to GST. Ld. Consultant thus contends that the delay was not in the date of filing but, rather, is due to the delay in receipt of its application on account of Department’s reorganization.
I find force in the appellant’s contention that the delay is there only on account of the receipt of appellant’s application for refund and this fact is duly supported by the Legacy Cell letter dated 18.07.2017 in C.No. IV/16/02/2017-Misc.Leg.RF/ RB-II issued by the Office of the Commissioner Goods and Service Tax, Chennai-South Commissionerate, wherein the date of claim of the appellant for refund has been acknowledged as 27.06.2017.
I do not find any finding by the lower authorities as to the non-compliance with any of the provisions of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 for rejecting appellant’s claim. This, coupled with date of acknowledgement by the Legacy Cell, makes it very clear that the appellant’s claim for refund was in order and is even so, in terms of Notifications referred to in the Order-in-Original. For the above reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the rejection of the appellant’s claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order is not sustainable and hence, the same is set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
