2019 (7) TMI 1185 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of Refund claim - export of services or not - Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - It is an undisputed fact that the appellant did not reverse the equal amount as required by the condition at paragraph 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012 (supra). But the fact also remains that there was no provision in the ACES system to debit the value of refund and also the fact that the entire credit which was carried forward in TRAN-1 stood reversed by the appellant voluntarily in its GSTR-3B filed for the month of April 2018 - The above facts are sufficient compliances with the condition at paragraph 2(h) since post G.S.T., the scenario is different than the one prevailing prior to G.S.T. regime. Otherwise, it would become an impossible task for an assessee, more so when the filing of ST-3 returns itself was done away with. The denial of refund is not in accordance with law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Correctness of rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
- Applicability of conditions under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 2004 for export of services.
- Reversal of CENVAT Credit under GST regime.
- Interpretation of Notification No. 27/2012-C.E.(N.T.).
- Compliance with conditions for claiming refund post-GST implementation.

Analysis:

The appellant, engaged in data analytics and IT services, contested the rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant claimed to fulfill conditions under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 2004 for export of services to seek CENVAT Credit refund. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claims citing non-fulfillment of primary conditions and the transition to GST. The Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise upheld the rejection, leading to the present appeals.

The appellant argued that the authorities overlooked their explanations and the impact of the GST transition on filing returns. They highlighted the reversal of CENVAT Credit in their accounts and absence of provisions to reflect refund claims in the ACES system. Referring to Circular No. 58/32/2018-G.S.T., the appellant contended that the reversal in GSTR-3B equated to non-availment of credit, supported by relevant tribunal decisions.

The Revenue opposed the appellant's contentions, emphasizing the mandatory nature of conditions under Notification No. 27/2012. They relied on a Supreme Court decision to support their stance. The Tribunal examined the arguments, relevant laws, and precedents cited. Acknowledging the absence of specific provisions to debit refund values post-GST, the Tribunal noted the voluntary reversal of credit in GSTR-3B by the appellant.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions aligned with the conditions under Notification No. 27/2012 post-GST implementation. Citing the Board's circular and consistent tribunal decisions, the Tribunal deemed the denial of refund as legally incorrect. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with appropriate benefits as per the law.

In the final judgment pronounced on 22.07.2019, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing compliance with post-GST refund conditions and overturning the earlier rejection of refund claims.