9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 297 - AT - Service TaxRefund of unutilised CENVAT credit of service tax - inputs/input services - Information Technology Software Services said to have been exported during the period April 2017 to June 2017 - delay in debiting CENVAT Account - N/N. 27/2012-CE dated 18.6.2012 read with Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - In the present case, the appellant has complied with the conditions prescribed under para 2(h) of the Notification No.27/2012 and debited the CENVAT account on 31.3.2018 though there was some delay in debiting the CENVAT account but the delay in debiting the CENVAT account is only a procedural delay and will not defeat the substantial right of the appellant to claim refund. Further, when the appellant filed the refund claim in February 2018, by that time, the erstwhile Service Tax Regime was repealed with GST Regime and the refund claim was filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and there was no occasion to debit the CENVAT credit account and reflect the same in ST-3 Returns as the company by that time was filing GST Returns under GST law. This Tribunal in the case of CHARIOT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU EAST 2021 (6) TMI 711 - CESTAT BANGALORE by relying upon the Division Bench decision of the CESTAT Mumbai in the case of SANDOZ PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR 2015 (10) TMI 882 - CESTAT MUMBAI had held that when the assessee reverses the credit in the GSTR-3B but there was only a delay in debiting the same, then in that case, it is deemed to be procedural delay and will not disentitle the appellant from claiming the refund. Appellant is also entitle to claim refund of ₹ 761/- because Event Management Service falls within the definition of input service as provided in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Eligibility of refund claim under Notification No.27/2012 for unutilized CENVAT credit. 2. Debiting of CENVAT account delay and its impact on refund claim. 3. Transition from Service Tax Regime to GST Regime and its effect on refund claims. 4. Eligibility of 'Event Management Service' for refund as an input service. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed a refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit under Notification No.27/2012 for providing Information Technology Software Services exported during a specific period. The original adjudicating authority rejected a portion of the claim due to non-debiting of the CENVAT account at the time of filing the refund claim. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision. The appellant argued compliance with conditions and procedural delay in debiting the account, citing relevant judicial precedents supporting their claim. 2. The delay in debiting the CENVAT account was considered procedural and not substantial enough to deny the refund claim. The Tribunal observed that the transition from the Service Tax Regime to the GST Regime affected the filing process, as the appellant was filing GST Returns under the new regime. The appellant provided evidence of not transitioning the credit to the GST Regime, supporting their claim for the refund. Judicial decisions highlighted that delay in debiting the CENVAT account does not invalidate the refund claim. 3. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from precedents cited by the Revenue, emphasizing the specific facts and legal provisions involved. Rulings from previous cases, including Chariot International Pvt. Ltd., supported the appellant's argument that procedural delays in debiting the account do not disqualify refund claims. The appellant's compliance with conditions under Notification No.27/2012 was found satisfactory, leading to the allowance of the refund claim. 4. Regarding the 'Event Management Service' component of the refund claim, the appellant contended that it falls within the definition of an input service and cited relevant Tribunal decisions to support this claim. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's interpretation, allowing the refund claim for the 'Event Management Service' as an eligible input service. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, in favor of the appellant. (Order was pronounced in Open Court on 06/08/2021.)
|
