M/S. Cotton Naturals (India) vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationService Tax Appeal No. 50783 of 2015-ST (SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an assessee's cenvat credit account shows an unutilized balance on the date the refund claim is filed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with the notification governing such claims, and the balance has not been used for any other purpose, the refund claim cannot be rejected on the premise that no credit was lying unutilized on the date of filing, since the amount debited to lodge the claim was in fact available and unutilized.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. NOI/SVTAX/000/APPL-I/106/2014-15 dated 29/1/2015 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals I), NOIDA]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Cotton Naturals (India) Appellants
Pvt.Ltd.
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
& Service Tax, NOIDA
Appearance:
Shri S D Gaur, Consultant for the Appellants
Shri R K Grover, AR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing /decision: 26.08.2015
ORDER NO. FO/ 52697 /2015-ST (SM)
Per Ashok Jindal :
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order rejecting their refund claim.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is an exporter of readymade garments. The appellant availed certain input services, i.e goods transport agency service, courier service, repair and maintenance and other services which were lying unutilized in their cenvat credit account. On exportation of the goods, the appellant filed refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 of Rs. 2,10,388/- which was rejected by the lower authorities on the premise that on the date of filing of refund claim, the appellant were not having any credit unutilized in the Cenvat Credit account.
3. Heard the parties. Perused the record.
4. On perusal of the record, I find that the appellants were having credit balance in their cenvat credit account of Rs.2,10.388 as on 31.5.2014 which was debited to file refund claim on 30.6.2014 as per the requirement of notification No. 27/2012 for filing the refund claim. As the amount of Rs.2,10,388/- was lying unutilized and same has not been utilized by the appellant for any other purpose except for refund. In these circumstances, the observations of the lower authorities that there was no balance in the cenvat credit account on the date of filing of refund claim is incorrect and not sustainable.
5. In these circumstances, I hold that appellant is entitled to claim the refund of Rs.2,10,388/-.
6. With these observations, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
ss
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free