Service Tax – Cestat Mumbai: Issue of rejection of refund claim due to non-disclosure of credit availment in ST-3 return – Held that the mistake committed by the appellant is merely a procedural lapse which Appellant tried to rectify immediately by filing manual ST-3 return – Revenue directed to verify the manual return [Order attached]
Order date – 22 December 2022
- The Appellant, Course 5 Intelligence Private Limited., filed a refund claim under Rule(5)ibid r/w Notification No. 27/2012 which was accumulated during the period from April, 2016 to June, 2016.
- The refund claim was rejected on the ground that as per ST-3 return filed by the appellants, the appellants failed to disclose availment of any Cenvat Credit during the period April, 2016 to September, 2016, which is not in accordance with the conditions laid down in Notification (supra)
- Whether non-disclosure of conditions in Notification (supra) leads to refund rejection or not?
- The Tribunal held that the mistake committed by the appellant is merely a procedural lapse which they tried to rectify immediately thereafter but was not permitted and substantial relief was denied to them, which is not permissible in law.
- It was held that the ST-3 Returns manually filed by the Appellants were not verified as the same were not accepted by the authority below. Thus the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Original Authority for deciding the issued afresh after verification of ST-3 returns filed by the appellant manually.
- The appeal is allowed by way of remand.