9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of refund of Cenvat credit in terms of Section 142 (3). Accordingly, on this ground the refund was wrongly rejected. From Section 142(8)(a) of CGST Act, 2017 it is clear that it provides that any amount of tax which was recoverable under the existing law before 01.07.2017 and the same is recovered, the amount recovered shall not be admissible as input tax credit under this Act. There is no ambiguity in the provision that any amount of tax paid under the existing law as was done in the present case no input tax credit is admissible. Here we are dealing with the Cenvat credit and not with the input tax credit - the finding of both the lower authorities dealing with the Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, for rejecting the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017. Both the authorities have rejected refund claim on the ground that the refund is not admissible as the same is not covered by Clause (a) to (f) of subsection (2) Section 11 B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and as per Section 142 (8)(a) of CGST Act, 2017, the refund is not admissible. 2. Shri Vinay Kansara, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the reason for rejection of the refund claim have been addressed in various judgments and it was held that even though the service tax was paid under reverse charge mechanism after 01.04.2017, but for the period prior to 01.07.2017, the refund of such duty paid being a Cenvat credit is admissible. 2.1 He further submits that the Low ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Prashant Tripathi, Learned Superintendent (AR), appearing on behalf of the appellant Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that the lower authorities have rejected the claim on the ground that the refund of Cenvat is not appearing under Clause (a) to (f) of Section 11 B (2). In this regard, I am of the view that since, the refund was otherwise not admissible in cash in respect of Cenvat credit but by virtue of Section 142 (3), the assessee is eligible for refund. Therefore, Clause (a) to (f) are not relevant for the purpose of refund of Cenvat credit in terms of Section 142 (3). Accordingly, on this ground the refund was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er authorities that since the amount of service tax was paid on pursuance by the audit party, the refund is inadmissible. In this regard, I find that neither any show cause notice for recovery of the service tax invoking any extended period was issued nor adjudication of such proceeding was done. Therefore, in not paying the service tax, no mala fide intention or suppression of fact is involved. Therefore, merely because the appellant have paid the service tax on pursuance by the audit will not be a reason for denying the refund under Section 142. The judgments cited by the appellant directly support their case. However, except the grounds for rejection no other issues have been dealt by the sanctioning authority such as admissibility of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
