9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54,926/- of accumulated CENVAT credit for the period October 2015 to March 2017 in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012. After due process of law, the refund sanctioning authority rejected some of the refund claims on the ground of being time-barred and also as inadmissible CENVAT availed. The appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against such orders who vide the orders impugned upheld the same. Hence these appeals. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. Consultant Shri Vikram Kataraya appeared and argued the matter. He submitted the details of the refund claims which were rejected by the authorities below as under:- S. No. Appeal No. & Date Order in Ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period of one year would have to be computed from the last month of the last quarter and then all the claims would be well within time. To support his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Astra Zeneca India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CGST, Chennai South reported in 2021 (55) GSTL 39 (Tri. Chennai) and BA Continuum India Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai reported in 2018 (6) TMI 1011 - CESTAT MUMBAI. It is submitted by the learned consultant that the Notification does not prohibit the clubbing of various quarters in a single refund claim. Therefore, if the refund claims are considered to be one, the claims would be within the time. He prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 5. The learned AR Shri S. Balakumar appeared and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Then if the period of one year is computed from the last month of the last refund claim of last quarter, the claim is within time. He has also relied upon the decision in the case of Astra Zeneca India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). On perusal of the said decision, it is a case in which the CENVAT credit of one year was carried forward to the other quarter and not a situation where the refund claims were filed clubbing different quarters. The learned consultant has also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of BA Continuum India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It is pointed out by the learned consultant that in the said case, the refund claim was filed for six months for the period April to September 2012 and the Tribunal set aside the order of reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt. Thus, the alternative prayer put forward at the time of argument is to grant refund taking into consideration the practical difficulty in taking recredit after introduction of GST. There was no adjudication in regard to the application of Sec. 142 of GST Act, 2017. There was no direction in the order to take recredit. Some amount is denied as not eligible also. The proceedings have emanated by filing refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012, the adjudication has been only in terms of the above and not under the provisions of Section 142 of GST, 2017. The Tribunal being a creature of the statute cannot grant reliefs extraneous to the adjudication. For the said reason, this prayer of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
