2018 (11) TMI 1461 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – 100% EOU – refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit – rejection on the ground that the credit particulars in respect of the input services were reflected in the ST-3 Returns for the period March 2012, which is after the date of export – Held that:- In the Cenvat regime, there is no specific requirement regarding maintenance of statutory records in the prescribed registers, which were hitherto provided under erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the MODVAT statute. Since the appellant contended that the disputed credit was availed during the period April to June 2011 for export of service effected during such quarter, the benefit of refund in terms of Rule 5 cannot be denied on mere non-reflection of the credit particulars in the ST-3 Returns for such relevant period.
–
The appellant had not produced any records to show that the credit particulars were really reflected in the Books of Accounts and were relatable to the services exported by t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
redit in respect of various input services used / utilized for providing such output service. Since the appellant exports its entire output service, there was no scope for utilization of CENVAT Credit for payment of service tax on the output service. Therefore, during the disputed period, the appellant had filed refund application under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, claiming refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit in respect of input services. Refund benefit claimed for the period April 2011 to June 2011 was denied by the authorities below, on the ground that the credit particulars in respect of the input services were reflected in the ST-3 Returns for the period March 2012, which is after the date of export. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Cenvat particulars on the input services reflected in ST-3 Returns for the month of March 2012, were in fact relatable to the period prior to June 2011. However, he submits that due to inadvertent, instead of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudication order on the ground that the input credit has not been reflected in the relevant ST-3 Returns filed for the period April to June 2011. However, the appellant contended that due to inadvertence, the credit particulars were not reflected during such relevant period but the same were duly entered in the accounting records maintained by the appellant. In the Cenvat regime, there is no specific requirement regarding maintenance of statutory records in the prescribed registers, which were hitherto provided under erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the MODVAT statute. Since the appellant contended that the disputed credit was availed during the period April to June 2011 for export of service effected during such quarter, the benefit of refund in terms of Rule 5 cannot be denied on mere non-reflection of the credit particulars in the ST-3 Returns for such relevant period. Further, I find that the appellant had not produced any rec
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =