AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II), Bangalore, and since common issue is involved in all these appeals, the same are considered for common disposal for convenience.
The appellant had filed a refund claim, claiming refund of unutilized/accumulated cenvat credit on input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product, in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005 (CCR for short) read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18/06/2012. After issuing show-cause notices, the adjudicating authority vide respective orders-in-original sanctioned a partial refund by observing inter alia that the conditions of export of goods have been satisfied by the taxpayer; that the appellant being a 100% EOU, could not use the cenvat credit anywhere else except getting refund from the Department and that they had substantially satisfied the conditions of the Notification No. 27/2012 ibid. Aggrieved by the above order, the Revenue preferred appeals before the First Appellate Authority, who, vide impugned orders, has allowed the Revenue's appeal thereby setting aside the refunds granted to the taxpayer. Against these orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), present appeals have been filed before this forum.
Heard Shri Atul K Alur, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri P. Rama Holla, learned Superintendent for the Revenue, I have gone through the orders of lower authorities and also the orders/decisions relied upon during the course of arguments.
I find that the Orders-in-Originals are speaking orders, inasmuch as the adjudicating authority has considered the conditions laid down under the governing Notification No. 27/2012 ibid and has also analysed the applicability of para 2(h) of said Notification ibid has also noted the change in law with the introduction of GST Act, 2017 whereby, the filing of ER-3 return was done away with. I find that the reasonings given by the adjudicating authority are quite logical and well-founded. It is also well settled that the introduction of a new law cannot be held to deprive the rights of a Taxpayer, especially when the tax payers' money lies with the Revenue. I also observe that the adjudicating authority has also referred to a report submitted by the concerned Range Officer who has in-turn noted inter alia that the appellant had in fact debited the cenvat refund amount manually at the time of filing of the refund claim, which is also in tune with para 2(h) of the Notification 27 ibid.
In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has only upheld the Department's contention that the refund sanctioned was not legal and proper, but has not whispered any reasons to arrive at such a conclusion. The Commissioner (Appeals) has only extracted the findings of the adjudicating authority to hold that the sanctioning order was not legal and proper, which is nothing but baseless, arbitrary & hence, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
I also find support from the earlier orders of this very Bench in the case of M/s. Inguest Technologies Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT, Bangalore North vide Final Order No. 20455/2019 dated 04/06/2019 & M/s. JMT Consultant Detailing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT, Bengaluru East vide Final Order No. 21215/2019 dated 16/12/2019 and following the above, I am of the clear view that the appellant is entitled for the refunds, the same was correctly sanctioned by the adjudicating authority and hence, I set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential benefits, if any as per law.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 28/10/2021)