9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 849 - AT - Service TaxRefund of the pre-deposit - Conflict with transitional provisions or not - dispute for the period prior to 30.06.2017 (i.e. prior to GST regime) - HELD THAT - Appreciating that order of Commissioner (Appeals)/(Audit) dated 9.3.2018 is in conflict with the transitional provisions, as contained in Section 142 of CGST Act, wherein it has been provided that on or after 1.7.2017, any adjustment regarding refund of the duty or liability on the assessee has to be adjusted in cash. The Adjudicating Authority directed to disburse refund of ₹ 41,94,304/- in cash. It is further held that the appellant/assessee is entitled to interest on the said amount from the date of reversal (03.11.2015) till the amount of refund in cash, @12% p.a., as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in SANDVIK ASIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS 2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT . Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Refund of pre-deposit amount, challenge to directions on cenvat credit, conflict with transitional provisions of CGST Act.
Refund of Pre-deposit Amount: The appellant had made a pre-deposit of &8377; 75,63,721/- pending litigation, which was subsequently set aside in their favor. The appellant applied for a refund, and &8377; 33,69,417/- was allowed in cash while &8377; 41,94,304/- was allowed as cenvat credit. The appellant challenged the direction to take cenvat credit of the balance amount. Challenge to Directions on Cenvat Credit: The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant had taken cenvat credit of &8377; 41,94,304/-, which was deposited in cash and reflected in their ER-I Return. The Commissioner upheld the refund by way of cenvat credit, leading the appellant to appeal against this decision. Conflict with Transitional Provisions of CGST Act: The appellant argued that the order directing the refund by way of cenvat credit was in conflict with Section 142 of the CGST Act, which mandates adjustments regarding refunds to be made in cash after 1.7.2017. The Tribunal acknowledged this conflict and allowed the appeal, modifying the order to direct the Adjudicating Authority to disburse the refund of &8377; 41,94,304/- in cash. The Tribunal also held that the appellant was entitled to interest on the refunded amount. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ordering the refund with interest to be granted within 45 days from the date of the order. The decision highlighted the importance of complying with the transitional provisions of the CGST Act, ensuring that adjustments regarding refunds are made in cash as mandated by the law.
|
