9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1805 - Commissioner - GSTRefund of CENVAT Credit - revision of ER-1 return - Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act - rejection on the grounds that the appellant has not availed the statutory remedy as available under Rule 120A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2007 - filing of revised declaration in form GST TRANS-1 electronically on the common portal within time period specified - HELD THAT - Though the provisions of Rule 120A specifically allows the appellant to file a revised GST TRAN-1 once within ninety days of the appointed day which has been further extended till 27th December 2017 vide CBEC order dated 15-11-2017 the appellant have not availed or bothered to avail such facility and instead they filed a refund claim on 20-3-2018 which indicates the intention of getting cash of such credit by way of refund by ignoring the statutory provision. It is a fact on records that the appellant had sufficient time to file the revised GST TRAN-1 declaration as per provisions of CGST Rules supra however they deliberately chose not to avail such statutory remedy with a specific intention to encash the Cenvat credit. Further the appellant has also failed to furnish any cogent reason that under which circumstances they did not avail facility as stipulated under CGST Rule for filing revised declaration under TRAN-1. The adjudicating authority has correctly rejected the refund claim - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Eligibility of refund under Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act due to revision of ER-1 return. Analysis: The appellant, M/s. Molex (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed a refund claim of ?1,93,866 under Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act, based on the revision of their ER-1 return for June 2017. The claim was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority citing non-availment of statutory remedy under Rule 120A of CGST Rules. The appellant contended that the additional Cenvat credit found admissible should be refunded in cash as per the law, and they had revised the return within the prescribed time limit under Central Excise Rules, 2002. They argued that failure to interpret the law harmoniously would defeat its purpose. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the provisions of Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act, which allows for refund where a return is revised within the specified time limit and refundable amounts are identified. The Adjudicating Authority's rejection was based on the appellant's failure to file a revised declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 electronically within the specified time frame, as per Rule 117 read with Rule 120A of CGST Rules. The rules mandate submission of such declarations within a specified period, which the appellant did not adhere to in this case. The Commissioner found that the appellant had filed their original and revised returns but did not avail the opportunity to revise the GST TRAN-1 declaration within the prescribed timeline. Despite having the chance to correct the declaration, the appellant opted to file a refund claim later, indicating a desire to encash the Cenvat credit rather than following the statutory procedure. The Commissioner concluded that the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the refund claim, as the appellant failed to provide a valid reason for not availing the facility to revise the declaration under TRAN-1. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Adjudicating Authority.
|
