9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 800 - AT - Service TaxRefund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - Information Technology Software Services - rejection on the ground of being time-barred and also as inadmissible CENVAT availed - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 - October 2015 to March 2017 - HELD THAT - From the narration of facts, it is clear that when the period of one year is computed from the last month of each quarter of refund claim, all refund claims filed are well beyond the period of one year. Hence the rejection of refund claim as time-barred by the authorities below cannot be considered to be totally erroneous. After the introduction of GST, the appellant is not able to take recredit of the said amount. Thus, the alternative prayer put forward at the time of argument is to grant refund taking into consideration the practical difficulty in taking recredit after introduction of GST. There was no adjudication in regard to the application of Sec. 142 of GST Act, 2017. There was no direction in the order to take recredit. Some amount is denied as not eligible also. The proceedings have emanated by filing refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012, the adjudication has been only in terms of the above and not under the provisions of Section 142 of GST, 2017. The Tribunal being a creature of the statute cannot grant reliefs extraneous to the adjudication. Appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
Refund claims rejection on grounds of being time-barred and inadmissible CENVAT availed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012. Analysis: 1. Refund Claims Rejection: The appellants filed six refund claims for accumulated CENVAT credit, which were rejected by the refund sanctioning authority as time-barred and inadmissible CENVAT availed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld these rejections, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that even if the claims were time-barred, they should be eligible for recredit as per the Notification due to the introduction of GST. The Tribunal noted that all refund claims, when computed from the last month of each quarter, exceeded the one-year period specified under sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 27/2012. The Tribunal found the rejection of refund claims as time-barred to be justified based on the facts presented. 2. Clubbing of Refund Claims: The appellant contended that clubbing various quarters in a single refund claim would prevent time-bar issues. Citing precedents, the appellant argued that the Notification did not prohibit such clubbing. However, the Tribunal differentiated the present case from the cited precedents where CENVAT credit was carried forward between quarters. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had filed separate claims for each quarter without clubbing, and thus, the argument for clubbing claims to avoid time-bar was not accepted. 3. Recredit and GST Introduction: The appellant argued that they complied with the condition of debiting the credit before filing refund claims as per Notification No. 27/2012. They highlighted the practical difficulty in taking recredit after the introduction of GST, which was not considered during adjudication. The Tribunal clarified that the proceedings were based on CENVAT Credit Rules and the Notification, not under the provisions of Section 142 of GST Act, 2017. Therefore, the Tribunal could not grant relief beyond the adjudication scope. The appellant was advised to seek relief for recredit and consequent refund separately as eligible under Notification No. 27/2012. 4. Final Decision: Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, dismissing the appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that while the appellant could seek relief for recredit and refund separately, the current appeals were not granted relief due to the specific adjudication scope. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court. This detailed analysis covers the issues of refund claims rejection, clubbing of claims, recredit in light of GST introduction, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.
|
