9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tmental appeals and in the third appeal, E/20113/2020; he upheld the order of the original authority rejecting the refund claim filed by the appellant. Since the issues involved in all the three appeals are same, therefore all the three appeals are being taken up together for discussion and disposal. For the sake of convenience, I will take up the facts of Appeal No. E/20113/2020. The details of all the three refunds and the period involved are given herein below in a tabular form: Appeal No. E/20112/2020 E/20111/2020 E/20113/2020 OIA No. & Date 322/2019 dated 28.11.2019 32382019 dated 28.11.2019 324/2019 dated 28.11.2019 OIO No. & Date 80/2017-18(r) ED9 dated 05.01.2018 (Refund sanctioned: Dept. appeal admitted) 81/2017-18(r) ED ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing the refund claim in order to comply with the conditions of Notification No.27/2012 Para 2(h). The appellant debit the refund claim amount from the monthly returns in GSTR-3B for the month of December 2017 and had also transferred the closing balance of credit on 30.06.2017 to GST through TRAN-1. After following the due process, the Assistant Commissioner vide the Order-in-Original rejected the entire refund claim on the ground that the CENVAT credit has been carried forward to TRAN-1 as per CGST Act 2017 and later on debited the amount claimed as refund from their CENVAT credit account in GSTR-3B monthly returns for the month of December 2017 contravening the Section 142(4) of CGST Act 2017, whereby not fulfilling the conditions lai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant had duly complied with the requirement of Para 2(h) of Notification No.27/2012 by debiting the refund claim amount in GSTR-3B at the time of filing the refund claim. He further submitted that had the GST Law not been introduced, the appellant would not have faced the present situation and would have easily debited the refund claim amount under the existing law. He further submitted that the impugned order has placed reliance on the second proviso to Section 142(3) of CGST Act 2017 in rejecting the refund claim. He also submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned order on a very hyper technical ground because it was impossible for the appellant to comply with the requirement of Notification No.27/2012 after the int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot on any other basis. He further submitted that the issue in hand in the present case was not pertaining to exemption rather the issue in hand was with respect to technical issue in the system with the introduction of GST wherein the compliance with Para 2(h) of Notification No.27/2012-CE was made next to impossible. He further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order is not relevant to the facts of the present case. 5. On the other hand, learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has not complied with the condition 2(h) of Notification No.27/2012 dated 18.06.2012. He further submitted that as per proviso to Section 142(3) of CGST Act, no refund shall be allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant did not reverse the equal amount as required by the condition at paragraph 2(h) of Notification No.27/2012 (supra). But the fact also remains that there was no provision in the ACES system to debit the value of refund and also the fact that the entire credit which was carried forward in TRAN-1 stood reversed by the appellant voluntarily in its GSTR-3B filed for the month of April 2018.7.2. The above facts, according to me, are sufficient compliances with the condition of paragraph 2(h) since post G.S.T., the scenario is different than the one prevailing prior to G.S.T. regime. Otherwise, it would become an impossible task for an assessee, more so when the filing of ST-3 returns itself was done away with" 6.1. Further, this T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has placed reliance on the decisions which deal with the exemption Notification and in those decisions, it has been held that exemption Notification should be construed strictly and if there is any ambiguity in the exemption Notification then the benefit should go to the Department and not to the assessee but these decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the present case, it is the claim of refund under Rule 5 of CCR and not any exemption Notification hence the decisions relied upon by the learned Commissioner are not applicable at all to the facts of the present case whereas the decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra squarely applies the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
