9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the amount claimed in the GSTR3B. Also, the Tribunal has consistently held that credit reversed without being utilized considered as if credit has not been taken. Hence the credit reversed in GSTR-3B tantamounts to not been taken credit in clause 1 - when the adjudicating authority has held that the belated debit is only a procedural lapse and technical in nature but the learned Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order has not discussed this aspect nor has given any contrary findings. The appellant has reversed the credit in the GSTR-3B; but there was only a delay in debiting the same and this delay is procedural delay and will not disentitle the appellant from claiming the refund - Rejection of refunds is not sustainable - the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 6,21,552/- 28.09.2017 2. January 2017 to March 2017 ₹ 3,44,288 13.11.2017 3. April 2017 to June 2017 ₹ 4,42,000 08.01.2018 Thereafter the appellant received a show-cause notice proposing to reject the refund claims on the ground that the appellant has not debited the amount in the cenvat register as required under para 2(h) of the Notification No.27/20212. Appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice and submitted that on 30.06.2017, they had a cenvat credit balance of ₹ 31,55,064/- and the same was carried forward in the TRAN1 under GST o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal has consistently held that credit reversed without being utilized considered as if credit has not been taken. Hence the credit reversed in GSTR-3B tantamounts to not been taken credit in clause 1. Further in the case of JCT Limited Vs. CCE, Jalandhar and Ludhiana [2015(2) TMI 600- CESTAT NEW DELHI) , this Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. Vs. UOI [2004(7) TMI 98] which was based on the Hon ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wire (P) Ltd. Vs. CC, Nagpur [1996(81) ELT 3 (SC)] , held that since the cenvat credit initially taken was reversed without being utilized by the assesse, it is to be treated as if the assesse has not taken the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conditions of the notification. In that event they become entitled to refund on that date. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside, the appeal is allowed with consequential benefit. ..... 5. In view of my discussion above, I find that the appellant has reversed the credit in the GSTR-3B; but there was only a delay in debiting the same and this delay is procedural delay and will not disentitle the appellant from claiming the refund. By following the ratio of the Tribunal in the case of Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, I am of the opinion that the impugned order rejecting the refunds is not sustainable in law and I set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief. (Order was pronounc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
