Case Law Details
Kronos Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST (Appeals) (CESTAT Allahabad)
Appellant had taken a categorical stand that the debit was made on 05.03.2014, i.e. prior to filing of the refund claim. The Revenue is not disputing the said debit entry but is adopting a hyper technical view that such debit entry was reflected in the ST-3 return of subsequent period and not for the period in question. The entire idea of debit of cenvat credit before filing of refund claim is that an assessee does not avail the dual benefit of credit as also refund of the same. It is primarily for this reason that the relevant rule read with notification in question requires debit before filing of refund claim so as to avoid double benefit to the claimant.
Debit of the account even subsequent to the date of filing of refund claim is not such a lapse so as to debar the assessee from the refund. Admittedly, such a refund claim cannot be denied on procedural ground. There is no dispute about the fact that services in question were exported and appellant is otherwise entitled to the refund of accumulated credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification in question.
Inasmuch the books of accounts stand already debited by the appellant on 05.03.2014, before filing of refund claim on 20.03.2014, I find no justifiable reason to deny the refund claim on the said hyper-technical ground. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and Revenue is directed to refund the admissible amount of credit to the appellant.
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.
