2019 (3) TMI 48 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – input services – House Keeping Services – Held that:- Reliance was placed in the case of WIPRO LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2017 (5) TMI 188 – MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that Landscaping of factory or garden certainly would fall within the concept of modernization, renovation, repair, etc. of the office premises. At any rate, the credit rating of an industry is depended upon how the factory is maintained inside and outside the premises – following the said decision, the credit is allowed.
–
Refund of unutilized input service credit – date of filing of refund claim – Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 – Held 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 18.07.2017 in C.No. IV/16/02/2017-Misc.Leg.RF/ RB-II issued by the Office of the Commissioner Go
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e 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 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. He further submitted that the last ST-3 return for the period January, 2017 to March, 2017 was filed by the appellant only on 12.07.2017 since, from July 2017 the GST having been introduced the requirement of filing ST-3 returns was done away with and hence no reversal could be made by the appellant at the time of filing application for refund. He further pointed out that even though Section 140 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 provided an option to carry forward the closing balance as of the last return relating to the period ending with the day preceding the appointed day. He further relied on the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pondicherry – 2018 (10) GSTL 172 (Mad.), Integra software Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pondicherry – 2017 (48) STR
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
reliance on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra). Following the judicial precedence therefore, the first issue succeeds. 4.3 The other issue is the date of filing of refund claim. The adjudicating authority has rejected the appellant s claim of it having made the refund claim on 27.06.2017. The first appellate authority has also concluded the date of filing 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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =