2024 (6) TMI 247 - AT - Service Tax

Jurisdiction of CESTAT - Refund of CENVAT Credit - Jurisdiction of Tribunal to entertain an appeal against an order passed under section 142(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - It would be noticed that under section 142(3) every claim for refund filed by any person before, on or after the appointed day, for refund of any amount of CENVAT Credit shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing shall be paid in cash. Under section 142(9)(b), where any return, furnished under the existing law, is revised after the appointed day but within the time limit specified for such revision under the existing law and if, pursuant to such revision, any amount is found to be refundable or CENVAT Credit is found to be admissible to any taxable person, the same shall be refunded to him in cash under the existing law. Both under sub-section (3) and sub-section (9) of section 142 of the CGST Act, the provisions of existing law would have to be applied in the circumstances enumerated in the two sub-sections. The existing law, as pointed out by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, is any law relating to levy and collection of duty or tax on goods or services or both passed or made before the commencement of the CGST Act and would, therefore, be Chapter V of the Finance Act and the Central Excise Act. The decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Bosch Electrical would, therefore, also be applicable to refund of CENVAT Credit found to be admissible under section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 - An appeal would lie to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal against an order passed under section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The papers may now be placed before the appropriate Bench for deciding the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain an appeal against an order passed under section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Applicability of appeal provisions to sub-section (9) of section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the question of whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order passed under section 142(9) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. The appellant, engaged in providing security and business support services, filed a revised ST-3 return claiming additional CENVAT Credit. The refund application was rejected as time-barred, leading to the present appeal.
3. The Tribunal referred the matter to a Larger Bench to determine if an appeal could be filed against an order under section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017.
4. The Larger Bench decision in Bosch Electrical established that an appeal could be filed against such orders, as they must be disposed of in accordance with existing laws like Chapter V of the Finance Act and the Central Excise Act.
5. The Tribunal confirmed that an appeal would lie against orders under section 142 of the CGST Act, as per the Larger Bench decision.
6. The issue arose regarding whether the same principle applied to sub-section (9) of section 142 of the CGST Act, under which the appellant's refund was claimed.
7. Both sub-sections (3) and (9) of section 142 required the application of existing laws for refund claims, as clarified by the Larger Bench.
8. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal provisions extended to orders under section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, aligning with the Bosch Electrical decision.
9. The reference was answered affirmatively, stating that an appeal could be filed against orders passed under section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017.
10. The matter was directed to the appropriate Bench for further proceedings.