9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 1316 - AT - Service TaxCash refund claims of accumulated cenvat credit - time limitation - rejection of refund claims on the ground that the same are time-barred as the date of receipt of consideration for export service received be considered as the relevant date as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - Considering the issue now raised is for the first time and in the circumstances, involves a question of law; hence it is appropriate to remand the matter to the learned Commissioner(Appeals) to record a finding on the said question of law about admissibility of cash refund under Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act as the appellant had claimed that they had not transitioned from the old CENVAT credit scheme to the new input tax credit under the GST regime from the appointed date i.e. 01/07/2017. In the interest of justice, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) to examine both the issues i.e. applicability of the principles of law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE CST, BENGALURU SERVICE TAX-I VERSUS M/S. SPAN INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE and also the provisions of Section 142(6) under the CGST Act, 2017 and decide the case accordingly. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
- Cash refund claims of accumulated cenvat credit rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Appellant's eligibility for cash refunds due to closure of business and unutilized cenvat credit. - Interpretation of relevant date for filing cash refund claims. - Applicability of Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 for cash refund. Analysis: The judgment pertains to appeals filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner Central Tax (Appeals-I), Bangalore, rejecting cash refund claims of accumulated cenvat credit on grounds of being time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contended that they are eligible for cash refunds due to the closure of their business and unutilized cenvat credit. The advocate for the appellant argued that the refund claims were rejected based on the wrong interpretation of the relevant date for filing the claims. He cited the case of Nichiplast India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CGST & CE [2021-TIOL-437-CESTAT-DEL] and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Slovak India Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. [2006-TIOL-469-HC-KAR-CX] to support their claim. Additionally, the appellant claimed entitlement to cash refunds under Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, as they had not transitioned their unutilized cenvat credit to the GST regime. The advocate referred to legal precedents like CCE, Pune Vs. Dai Ichi Karkari Ltd. [1999(112) ELT 353 (SC)] and Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. UOI [1999 (106) ELT 3 (SC)] to strengthen their argument. The Revenue's representative argued that the relevant date for filing cash refund claims should be determined based on the date of FIRC at the end of the quarter, as established in the case of CCE & CST, Bengaluru Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2018(12) GSTL 200 (Tri. LB)]. The Revenue also contested the appellant's claim under Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, stating that this argument was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and no findings were recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. After hearing both sides, the Member (Judicial) found that the key question revolved around the appellant's entitlement to cash refunds of accumulated cenvat credit for the relevant periods. The judgment highlighted the need to determine the correct interpretation of the relevant date for filing refund claims and the applicability of Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017. As the issue of cash refunds under Section 142(6)(a) was raised for the first time, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine both issues thoroughly and to provide a finding on the admissibility of cash refund under the said provision. The judgment emphasized affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing in this regard. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration and decision. (Order pronounced in the open court on 07/02/2023)
|
