9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turer of dutiable items, and as such the situation is revenue neutral. Further, the appellant under the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules was entitled to cenvat credit of the said amount - Further, in view of the provisions of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, provides that every claim for refund filed by any person before, on or after the appointed day, for refund of any amount of cenvat credit, duty, tax, interest or any other amount paid under the existing law, shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey were engaged in the manufacture of Dies and Tools, Doors and others falling under Chapter Heading No. 82073000 73083000 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also having Service Tax registration for works contract service , Manpower supply service Repair and maintenance services for payment of tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). 3. An audit objection was raised relating to the period 2012-13 to 2016-17, it was pointed out that the appellant failed to include the amount of PF in the assessable value for the purpose of service tax payment on Manpower Supply Agency Service , which was payable under reverse charge mechanism and thus they have short paid the service tax. As the appellant was manufacturing and clearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt or adjudication proceedings instituted before or after the appointed day. It was also held that the transitional provision of CGST Act do not provide for cenvat credit of cess and hence refund of ₹ 40,381/- is inadmissible. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 7. Heard the parties and perused the record. 8. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that payment of service tax including the cess relating to the period prior to 30.06.2017, paid in the year 2018 during the GST regime, amounts to payment in accordance with law as the same has been paid on the insistence by the Department audit objection. I further find that the demand pursuant to audit is also bad as the appellant was entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (unjust enrichment). 9. Thus, from a conjoint reading of sub-section (3), (5) and (8)(a) of the CGST Act, it is evident that an assessee is entitled to claim refund of service tax under RCM paid after the appointed day under the existing law and such claim has to be disposed of according to the provisions of the existing law. As the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit of the said amount of ₹ 9,85,827/-, which is now no longer available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
