9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 120 - AT - Central ExciseRejection of refund claim made under Section 142 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994. HELD THAT - As regard the refund claim of Rs. 20,52,143/- and Rs. 2,19,004/- as submitted by learned counsel, the same has been allowed in the revised Trans-1. However, the same has not yet been credited in their electronic credit ledger. In this regard, the appellant has liberty to approach the concerned GST authority for further credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Therefore, as regard the refund claim for the amount of Rs. 20,52,143/- and Rs. 2,19,004/- the same became infructuous. As regard the refund claim of Rs. 41,244/- and Rs. 4,87,533/-, the same was rejected on the ground that appellant have paid the amount after 01.07.2007, thereafter, no Cenvat credit provision was excisting. It is found that this issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of SHREE GANESH REMEDIES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C.E. S.T. -VADODARA-II 2024 (8) TMI 1468 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD wherein dealing with the same issue this Tribunal has held that ' The Section 142(3) also deals with the amount which is accrued prior to GST regime. Accordingly, the situation arose in the present case is exactly the same for which provision of Section 142(3) was enacted. The amount of service tax was pertaining to the period prior to 01.07.2017 which is payable under the existing law. Subsequently, the said amount became admissible as a Cenvat credit under existing law and since the same cannot be availed as Cenvat credit after 01.07.2017, the only option is to refund the same in terms of Section 142(3).' From the above decision, it is clear that even though the tax/duty paid subsequent to 01.07.2017 but for the period prior to 01.07.2017, the same is eligible as Cenvat credit under existing law. Therefore, only because the Service Tax was paid after 01.07.2017 refund cannot be rejected. However, the refund has to be processed by following the law such as unjust enrichment, etc. Therefore, only for this limited purpose, this matter related to refund of Rs. 41,244/- and Rs. 4,87,533/- is remanded to the adjudicating authority, for passing a fresh order. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Section 142 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 27,99,924 for the period July to December-2017. The appellant's counsel submitted that certain refund claims had been allowed in the revised Trans-1 but not yet credited in their input tax credit account. The Tribunal had previously addressed a similar issue in cases like Shree Ganesh Remedies Ltd. and Filatex India Ltd. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the refund claims of Rs. 20,52,143 and Rs. 2,19,004 had been allowed in the revised Trans-1 but not yet credited in the electronic credit ledger. The appellant was advised to approach the GST authority for further credit. As for the refund claims of Rs. 41,244 and Rs. 4,87,533, they were rejected on the grounds that the appellant was not eligible for Cenvat credit after 01.07.2017. The Tribunal referred to Section 142(3) to explain that the amount accrued prior to the GST regime was eligible as Cenvat credit under existing law, even if the tax/duty was paid after 01.07.2017. The Tribunal clarified that the refund could not be rejected solely based on the payment date post-01.07.2017 for amounts accrued before that date. The matter related to the refund of Rs. 41,244 and Rs. 4,87,533 was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh order, considering the observations made. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
