9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 205 - AT - Service TaxRectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - inadvertent mention of Input Tax Credit instead of 'Tran-1 Credit' - HELD THAT - It is observed that Tran-1 is the form prescribed for transferring the cenvat credit/VAT credit available with the applicant on the date of migration to the GST regime. Credit under the existing law once transferred to GST is nothing but an input tax credit and is used in the same manner. The applicant s claim that they have reversed the Tran-1 credit and not input tax credit does not substantiate the claim for rectification. As regards the second ground, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as claimed by the applicant, to be missing from the order, is erroneous. There are no substance in the claim made by the applicant in this regard - rectification application filed by the applicant cannot be substantiated and is accordingly dismissed.
Issues: Rectification of mistake regarding input tax credit and mention of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Issue 1: Rectification of mistake regarding input tax credit: The applicant filed for rectification based on the inadvertent mention of input tax credit instead of "TRAN-1 credit." The applicant argued that the reversal of 'TRAN-1' credit was done under the Finance Act, 1994, and not debited from the Input Tax Credit Ledger under the CGST Act, 2017. The Department's letter directed the reversal of Cenvat Credit of Input Service Tax under CCR 2004, not through the ITC Ledger account. The refund claim was related to erroneous payment of Service Tax under the Central Excise Act, 1944, not the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal noted that Tran-1 is used for transferring cenvat credit/VAT credit to the GST regime, which becomes input tax credit. The claim that Tran-1 credit was reversed and not input tax credit did not support the rectification request. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification application, finding no substance in the applicant's claim. Issue 2: Mention of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The applicant contended that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was missing from the order. However, the Tribunal found this claim to be erroneous. It was noted that the Assistant Commissioner had rejected the refund claim under Section 11B, as recorded in para 2.2 of the order. The submissions of the appellant also referenced Section 11B, and the authorized representative for the Revenue extensively discussed this section. The Tribunal's decision in a previous case also relied on Section 11B. Additionally, the alternative submission by the appellant regarding the refund of accumulated credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules was addressed. After considering all aspects, the Tribunal concluded that the rectification application could not be substantiated and therefore dismissed it. In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues raised by the applicant regarding the rectification of mistakes related to input tax credit and the mention of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After thorough consideration and analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification application, finding no merit in the claims made by the applicant.
|
