9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 611 - AT - Service TaxRefund of unutilized cenvat credit - carried forward of balance cenvat account to TRAN-1 GST Regime - Section 142 (4) of CGST Act,2017 - HELD THAT - It is brought out from the facts that though the credit was availed prior to introduction of GST the refund claim was filed by them only on 22.03.2018. The requirement to debit the refund amount as under para 2 (h) of the notification can be applied only when the assessee is required to file ST-3 returns. After introduction of GST, it is not possible for the assessee to file ST-3 returns. It is not required for the appellant to deduct the amount in the ST-3 returns as and when credit is availed. Only if they intend to file refund claim they are required to debit the same - Therefore the contention of Ld. A.R that assessee ought to have debited the amount during the existence of Finance Act, 1994 itself cannot have substance. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim of unutilized cenvat credit on services consumed in the export of services during a specific period. 2. Applicability of Section 142(4) of CGST Act, 2017 regarding refund claims. 3. Debiting requirements under Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) for refund claims. 4. Timing of filing refund claims and the impact of GST introduction on filing requirements. Analysis: 1. The case involved the rejection of a refund claim amounting to ?6,42,299/- for unutilized cenvat credit on services consumed during the export of services. The appellant argued that they are eligible for a refund under Rule 5 of CCR 2004 as they were engaged solely in export services and faced challenges in utilizing the cenvat credit due to the transition to GST. The department rejected the claim citing Section 142(4) of CGST Act, 2017, which prohibits refunds when the balance amount is carried forward from the CENVAT account. 2. The appellant contended that they were unable to debit the refund amount as required under Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) due to the absence of a portal for filing ST-3 returns during the transition to GST. They carried forward the unutilized credit to GST TRAN-1 and filed the refund claim accordingly. The department argued that the appellant had sufficient time to avail the refund of transitional credit but delayed filing the claim, thus making them ineligible for a refund under Section 142(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and relevant legal provisions, noting that the requirement to debit the refund amount under the notification could only be applied when the assessee was required to file ST-3 returns. Since the introduction of GST eliminated the need for ST-3 returns, the appellant was not obligated to deduct the amount at the time of availing credit. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, including Global Analytical India Pvt. Ltd. and Fine Automotive and Industrial Radiators Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that post-GST, the scenario was different, and compliance with the conditions for refund claims was judged differently. 4. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, following the precedent set by previous decisions and emphasizing the practical challenges faced by the appellant during the transition to GST. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the changed circumstances post-GST and the necessity to interpret refund claim requirements accordingly. Conclusion: The judgment addressed the rejection of a refund claim for unutilized cenvat credit during the transition to GST, emphasizing the practical challenges faced by the appellant and the need to interpret refund claim requirements in light of the changed circumstances post-GST. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, citing previous decisions and the unique challenges presented by the transition period.
|
