M/S. Mecon Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 19/ST/APPEAL-1/2014/8705 dated 23/3/2015 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals I), New Delhi]

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. Mecon Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

& Service Tax, Delhi

Appearance:

Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey, FCA 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/ 52696 /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 credit of 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

2