9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCT, RANGAREDDY- GST [ 2018 (6) TMI 814 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] , identical question was involved and the CESTAT, Hyderabad Bench, after detailed analysis of the Notification and the various case law, has held that It is clear that N/N. 05/2006 CE (NT) lays down that the amount claimed as refund of CENVAT amount should be debited before applying for the Refund and the appellant had not done so. They have debited the amount, but much later and thereby they violated the condition 2(h) of the notification. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/21860/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20452/2019 - Dated:- 31-5-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri K.S. Ramu, Advocate For the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order is not sustainable as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the amount claimed as refund was not debited in their ST-3 return as the system does not allow to file second revised ST-3 return after filing the refund claim. He further submitted that prior debits of CENVAT credit were reflected in subsequent returns filed for the period from April 2017 to June 2017 and have made debit entry which was lying in balance in the STR-3 return and also which was not included in the ST-3 returns in their GSTR3B returns filed on 10/10/2017. It is his further submission that the appellant did not carry forward the refund claim shown in the ST return for the quarter ending Jun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld also be reflected in their ST-3 return but the same was not done in the present case. Further I find that as per the said Notification, it is the mandatory condition. Further the reasons for not debiting and not showing the same in their ST-3 return, are not very convincing. Further I find that the Commissioner(Appeals) has given the details reasons for rejecting the said refund claim. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant finding of the Commissioner(Appeals) contained in para 7 to 9, which is reproduced herein below:- 7. I find that the amount of Cenvat Credit lying in balance as on 30th June 2017 was ₹ 1,73,093/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Three Thousand and Ninety Three only) and as per the Notification No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim, the said condition was duly fulfilled at a later stage when they debited the amount in their GSTR 3B. However what they have debited is Input Tax Credit and not the accumulated cenvat credit. 9. During the refund period, the provisions of Notification No. 27/202 C.E. (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012 and Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 were in force. The condition of Rule 5 of CCR is that the credit which is accumulated and which cannot be used for payment of tax towards final product can be refunded. However in the present case, the accumulated credit of ₹ 1,85,429/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Nine only) was transited to GST regime by carrying forward in their TRAN-1. Further the Para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
