9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2019 (7) TMI 1185 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein the Hon ble CESTAT on an identical set of facts has held as denial of refund is not in accordance with law. It is very strange that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to give any finding on the above relied upon decisions and he has placed reliance on decisions which are not relevant to the facts of the present case. The decisions relied upon by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order does not deal with the subject involved in these cases. The rejection of the refund under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No.27/2012 is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 20111-20113 of 2020 - FINAL ORDER NO. 20144-20146/2021 - Dated:- 16-6-2021 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Akbar Basha, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.B.Nanaiah, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER These three appeals have been directed against the common impugned order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) in two Appeals, Appeal No. E/20112/202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the Rule 5 of CCR 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012. On the date of filing the refund claim i.e. 19.01.2018, there was change in law with the introduction of Goods Service Tax Law made effective from 01.07.2017 and there was no option for the appellant to file monthly ER-2 Returns and therefore, the appellant could not debit the refund claim amount in ER-2 Returns at the time of 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 laid down under Notification No.27/2012-CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled after the introduction of GST, it would be considered as sufficient compliance with the conditions of Para 2(h) of the Notification. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Global Analytics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, 2019 ACR 388 Chennai. M/s String Information Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST Central Excise (Final Order No.40972-40973/2019 dated 31.07.2019 M/s T2S Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST Central Excise (Final Order No.40964-40965/2019 dated 25.07.2019 M/s JMT Consultant Detailing Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCT, Bangalore East, 2020-TIOL-10-CESTAT-BANG. M/s Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST, 2019-TIOL-3411-CESTAT-CHD. 4.1. He further submitted that with the introduction of Goods Services Tax, filing of ER-2 Returns has been done away and further there was no facility in the ACES System to debit the value of refund claim amount at the time of filing after 01.07.2017 and therefore, the appellant had no option but to debit the refund claim amount only in GSTR-3B in the month of December 2017. Learned Counsel also submitted that the learned Commissioner in Para 1 ..... 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 Tribunal in the case of GMT Consultant Detailing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as under: I find that the appellant have reversed the CENVAT credit in their CENVAT credit account but the same was not shown in the ST-3 Returns because by the time refund was filed, GST has been introduced and filing of ST-3 returns itself was done away with. Further, I find that the appellant has voluntarily debited the refund amount in GSTR-3B during May 2018 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
