2019 (7) TMI 1299 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT Credit - export of service - periods from April 2016 to September 2016 and October 2016 to March 2017 - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - Issue decided in the case of M/S. GLOBAL ANALYTICS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. CENTRAL EXCISE 2019 (7) TMI 1185 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that the denial of refund is not justified - refund is to be allowed. Scope of SCN - HELD THAT - The Adjudicating Authority has clearly travelled beyond the Show Cause Notice, for which reason also the rejection of refund cannot sustain - Moreover, the Revenue has granted refund on the very same set of facts, that too, for a later year, which is also a fact on record. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the periods from April 2016 to September 2016 and October 2016 to March 2017 rejected by lower authorities. Appellant's contentions regarding compliance with conditions, debiting of refund claimed, and rejection basis analyzed.

Analysis:
The appellants, exporters of Information Technology Software Service, filed refund applications under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for two periods. Orders-in-Original rejecting refund claims were upheld by the Commissioner of Central Tax. Appellant contended that GST introduction transitioned from filing Service Tax returns, satisfying conditions under Notification No. 27/2012, and debited the refund claimed from CENVAT Credit account. The Adjudicating Authority rejected based on non-debiting in ST-3 return, but appellant argued compliance with GST regime provisions and debiting in CENVAT Credit Account. The Revenue opposed, citing a mandatory condition at paragraph 2(h) and a Supreme Court decision.

The Member analyzed the contentions, referencing a similar case where compliance was accepted post-GST transition due to system limitations. The Board's Circular and consistent judicial views supported this interpretation. Noting absence of rejection proposals in Show Cause Notices and subsequent refund grants by Revenue, the Member found the rejection unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside, and appeals allowed with consequential benefits.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the impact of GST transition on compliance requirements, system limitations, and the importance of adherence to statutory conditions. The Member's decision emphasized the need for consistency in interpreting tax laws post-GST implementation and ensuring procedural fairness in adjudication processes.