9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e introduction of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which is a self-contained code having its own appellate mechanisms? Accordingly, the Registry is directed to place this file before the Hon ble President to consider constitution of a Larger Bench to decide the above question of law. - Service Tax Appeal No. 40010 of 2020 - Interim Order No. 40012/2021 - Dated:- 16-9-2021 - Mr. P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri S. Balakumar, Authorized Representative. ORDER Brief facts leading to the present dispute inter alia are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts viz. window regulator, wiper systems, moto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT Credit Rules, 2004, etc. 1.2 It was further presented that a Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to reject the refund claim filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not substantiated their eligibility to avail the CENVAT Credit and that there is no provision under the existing law to claim refund of Service Tax paid under reverse charge mechanism; that the appellant filed its reply to the Show Cause Notice denying the allegations; that the proposal to deny the refund claim was confirmed in the Order-in-Original No. 19/2019-R dated 24.04.2019 on the ground that the appellant had not paid Service Tax in time and that as per Section 142(7)(a) of the C.G.S.T. Act, the amount paid by the appellant is in the nature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Bench has allowed the refund, but however, subsequently, I have come across an Order passed by the co-ordinate Hyderabad Bench of the CESTAT in the case of M/s. United Seamless Tubular Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Tax, Rangareddy reported in 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 244 (Tri. Hyd.) wherein, the Learned co-ordinate Bench has rejected the appeal inter alia on the ground that CESTAT has no role in interpreting or applying the provisions of the C.G.S.T. Act. In view of this, my other orders which are relied upon by the Learned Advocate for the appellant may not reflect the correct view since the Learned Hyderabad Bench has clearly observed that CESTAT lacks jurisdiction in so far as issues / refund claims under C.G.S.T. are concerned. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
