9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2021 - Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar For the Respondent : Mr.V.Sundareswaran Senior Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned Order-in-Original Nos.79 and 80 of 2018 dated 25.10.2018 to quash the same and direct the respondent to grant refund claim to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had filed the three refund claims on 07.09.2017, 21.09.2017 and 30.10.2017 for the the following period. (Commencing from October 2016 to December 2016, January 2017 to March 2017 and April 2017 to June 2017). S.No. Date Amount Period 1 07.09.2017 ₹ 1,52,95,703/- October 2016 to December 2016 2 21.09.2017 ₹ 3,43,88,456/- January 2017 to March 2017 3 30.10.2017 ₹ 1,65,14,132/- April 2017 to June 2017 The three refund claims were considered by the respondent vide thre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim reversals, the same should not be disclosed in the last ST-3 return. However, I find that the arguments mentioned above putforth by the claimants are not reasonable and not based on valid law. On going through the details available in ST-3 return, it can be very well seen that the return captures all the data including arrear payments for the earlier period, interest , penalty payments etc, and reversal of CENVAT credit made due to various reasons and relevant columns are available to furnish the same. Therefore, the argument that in the ST-3 return for the period April 17 to June 17, the transactions pertaining to the said period only will be disclosed is incorrect. Similarly, the inference made by the claimant that revision of service tax return can be done only for reverse charge inclusion as per CBEC Circular 207/5/2017-ST is totally misplaced as the said Circular has not spelt so. Also, freezing of columns for the months of July, August and September in the ST-3 return for April-June 17 was only for furnishing the taxable value etc, and the CENVAT credit taken, utilized columns etc,were open to feed any data and the CENVAT credit payers have furnished such data in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which they did not and therefore the refund claims dated 07.09.2017 and 21.09.2017 for the period commencing from October 2016 to December 2016 and January 2017 to March 2017 cannot be allowed. The refund claims cannot be allowed on the basis of the refund claim allowed for the period April 2017 to June 2017 filed on 30.10.2017, vide Order-in- Orginal No.81 of 2018. 8. The impugned orders seeking to deny the refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012- CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012, (vide condition 2(h) of the Notification) has been denied in view of the intervening events with the implementation of GST with effect from 01.07.2017. The refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Rules 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012- CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 is a legitimate export incentives given to an exporter of service and goods. Therefore, such legitimate export incentives given to exporters of goods or service cannot be denied merely because of intervening changes. Considering the same, I am of the view, the writ petitions deserves to be allowed. 9. That apart, for the period covered by April 2017 to June 2017, the respondent has allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing the claim, I find that the claimant was not in a position to satisfy both the above said conditions of the impugned notification. 36.5 Going a step further, the claimant has also submitted an INDEMNITY BOND dated 02.04.2018 for the refund amount. The claimant in their Indemnity Bond stated as below:- The refund claim for the period April 2017 to June 2017 for an amount of INR 1,65,14,132/- was filed by them on 30th Oct.2017/2nd November 2017. At the time of filing of the refund claim, facility of filing of ST-3 had been closed and hence debiting the amount claimed from ST-3 return was not possible. Therefore ,the closing balance of CENVAT credit in the ST-3 return of April to June 2017 is inclusive of the refund amount claimed for the period April 2017 to June 2017. This amount has not been carried forward into the Electronic Credit Ledger of GST while filing from TRAN-1. However, the same amount has been reversed in the books of accounts to satisfy the requirement of aforesaid notification. We hereby, agree that in the event of any discovery by your office that BNP Paribas has availed dual benefit i.e., refund under erstwhile law as well as carry forward to GST throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice. Considering the same as well as my findings discussed supra, I proceed to pass the following Order. ORDER I, sanction a refund of ₹ 1,65,14,132/- (One Crore Sixty Five Lakh Fourteen Thousand and One Hundred and Thirty Two only) towards the refund claim filed by M/s.BNP Paribas Global Securities Operations India Private Limited, having their premises at Menon Eternity, 2nd and 3rd Floor, New Door No.165 (Old No.110), St.Mary's Road, Alwarpet, Teynampet, Chennai 600018 (Currently shifted to Plot No.8, Centre Point II, Ekkaduthangal Road, Thiru Vi. Ka Industrial Estate, Developed Plots, Guindy, Chennai 600 032), for the quarter April 2017 to June 2017 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004, read with notification No.27/2012 C.E.(NT) dt 18.06.2012. 10. The reasoning adopted for allowing the above refund claim has to be adopted for the other two refund claims as well. Considering the fact that the petitioner has also not been able to utilize the credit of duty under the provisions of GST which came to be effected from 01.07.2017, legitimate export incentives cannot be denied to the petitioner. I find no merits in denying the benefit of refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
