M/s. Inspirage Software Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner GST & CCE (Chennai South)
Service Tax
2019 (3) TMI 48 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 27-2-2019
Appeal No. ST/42525/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 40381/2019
Service Tax
Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
Shri G. Thangaraj, Consultant, for the Appellant
Shri M. Jagan Babu, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Heard Shri G. Thangaraj, Ld. Consultant for the assessee and Ld. DR, Shri M. Jagan Babu, AC for the Revenue.
2. Ld. Consultant appearing for the assessee contended that there are two issues involved viz., i) denial of cenvat credit on “House Keeping Services'', and ii) refund of unutilized input service credit under Rule 5 of CCR re
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
(10) GSTL 172 (Mad.), Integra software Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pondicherry – 2017 (48) STR 137 (Tri.-Chen.) and also the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cosmonaut Chemicals Vs. UOI – 2009 (233) ELT 46 (Guj.) in his support.
3. Per contra, Ld. DR supported the findings of the lower authorities, also pointed out that the date of application is 12.07.2017, which has been duly considered and refund has been worked out as on 12.07.2017. He further pointed out that as per the Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012, the adjudicating authority has duly considered the balance of Cenvat credit available as on the last day of the quarter that available on the day of filing the refund claim which is on 12.07.201
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g 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.
4.4. 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 18.07.20
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =