2019 (11) TMI 1408 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of Service tax - GTA Services - time limitation - reverse charge mechanism - services received by them prior to 01.07.2017 and partially pertaining to the Service Tax paid under reverse charge mechanism on Goods Transport Agency (G.T.A.) for the quarter ending June 2017 - HELD THAT - There is also no dispute that the appellant is not found to be ineligible for its refund otherwise; nor are its refund claims found to be wrong. The Revenue has also not suspected the bona fides of the appellant as regards the receipt of service or remitting of Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism. It is the introduction of the C.G.S.T. Act that prompted the appellant to claim the refund because they were unable to carry it forward which fact also satisfies the requirements of the second proviso to Section 142 (3) of the C.G.S.T. Act 2017. The appellant is entitled to the refund which is also in line with the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M/S. 3E INFOTECH VERSUS CUSTOMS EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS-I) 2018 (7) TMI 276 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that The Application under Section 11B cannot be rejected on the ground that is bared by limitation provided for under Section. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Eligibility of the appellant for claiming a refund partially pertaining to services received before 01.07.2017 and partially pertaining to Service Tax paid under reverse charge mechanism on Goods Transport Agency (G.T.A.) for the quarter ending June 2017.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility of the appellant for claiming a refund
The appellant claimed a refund for Service Tax paid under reverse charge mechanism on various services received before the introduction of G.S.T. The application for refund was filed invoking miscellaneous transition provisions. The Revenue rejected the claim citing non-alignment with transitional provisions of Section 142 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017. The Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise upheld the rejection. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellant had received input services during the relevant period but was unable to transfer the credit to the G.S.T. regime due to unreflected CENVAT Credit in their returns. The Ld. Commissioner's assumption based on invoice dates was deemed premature without supporting evidence. The appellant's inability to carry forward the credit due to the introduction of the C.G.S.T. Act satisfied the requirements of Section 142 (3) proviso. The appellant's bona fides were not questioned by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Judicial Precedent
The judgment referenced a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in a similar case involving entitlement to a refund, which supported the appellant's claim. The Tribunal found the appellant entitled to the refund based on the facts presented and the legal provisions, aligning with the High Court's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the refund and any consequential benefits as per the law, emphasizing the satisfaction of statutory requirements and legal entitlement based on the specific circumstances and legal provisions, as supported by relevant judicial precedent.