9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropriate to remand the matter to the learned Commissioner(Appeals) to record a finding on the said question of law about admissibility of cash refund under Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act as the appellant had claimed that they had not transitioned from the old CENVAT credit scheme to the new input tax credit under the GST regime from the appointed date i.e. 01/07/2017. In the interest of justice, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) to examine both the issues i.e. applicability of the principles of law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE CST, BENGALURU SERVICE TAX-I VERSUS M/S. SPAN INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [ 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE] and also the provisions of Section 142(6) under the CGST Act, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services, which were exported to GM Global Technology Operations Inc. (GMGTO) upto the date of transfer of business on 01/09/2009, the appellant procured and used various input services in relation to providing the export of output service. He further submitted that the consideration for the input services were paid to the service providers after 30/08/2009, as per the terms of contract and accordingly, only upon payment of the invoice value along with service tax, the service tax so paid to the input service providers was available as cenvat credit to them. It is his contention that the credit so availed could not be utilised during the relevant period since there was no taxable service provided in domestic market; thus resulted in accrua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it in cash is admissible to them under Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017. In support of his arguments, he has referred the following decisions:- i. CCE, Pune Vs. Dai Ichi Karkari Ltd. [1999(112) ELT 353 (SC)] ii. Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. UOI [1999 (106) ELT 3 (SC)] 4. Per contra, learned AR for the Revenue has submitted that to ascertain the relevant date for filing cash refund of accumulated cenvat credit, the issue of date of FIRC at the end of quarter, has been held to be relevant date as settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE CST, Bengaluru Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2018(12) GSTL 200 (Tri. LB)]; hence the argument of the appellant has no basis in view of the said Larger Bench judgement of the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner(Appeals) to record a finding on the said question of law about admissibility of cash refund under Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act as the appellant had claimed that they had not transitioned from the old CENVAT credit scheme to the new input tax credit under the GST regime from the appointed date i.e. 01/07/2017. In the interest of justice, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) to examine both the issues i.e. applicability of the principles of law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. and also the provisions of Section 142(6) under the CGST Act, 2017 and decide the case accordingly. Needless to mention that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be afforded to the appellant. Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
