9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN [ 2022 (5) TMI 652 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] that 'appellant is entitled for cash refund in view of Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act but for the purpose of verification of original invoices/documents, I remand the case back to the original authority for the limited purpose of verification of the invoices/documents.' The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Krati Singh and Shri Aman Singh, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Yashpal Singh, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER M/s G 4 S Secure Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. the appellants, are engaged in provision of service of Security Services, Business Support Services etc; they have filed service tax Returns in Form ST-3 on 15.08.2017 for the period April 2017 to June 2017; appellant filed a revised ST-3 Returns on 28.09.2017 as per which the appellants claim that they are eligible to avail additional CENVAT credit of Rs.43,06,900/-; the appellants claim the refund of the same under Section 142 (9) (b) of CGST Act, 2017 on 06.06.2019; the Original Authority rejected the refund vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e North 2021 (7) TMI 326 - CESTAT BANGALORE. Commissioner, Central Tax, Goods Service Tax, Delhi East vs. CH2M Hill (India) Pvt. Limited 2022 (6) TMI 711 - CESTAT NEW DELHI. Punjab National Bank vs. Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Central Excise, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2022 (5) TMI 652-CESTAT NEW DELHI. Consulting Engineers Group Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise CGST, Jaipur-1 2022 (12) TMI 658 - CESTAT NEW DELHI. Wave One Private Limited vs Commissioner, Office of The Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Delhi 2023 (11) TMI 1078-CESTAT NEW DELHI. NIIT Limited vs Commissioner, CGST-Delhi East 2023 (1) TMI 392- CESTAT NEW DELHI. USV Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ST, Daman 2023 (2) TMI 230-CESTAT AHMEDABAD. Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Chennai 2023 (4) TMI 973 Doowon Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Chenna- 2022 (5) TMI 984-CESTAT CHENNAI Jai Mateshwaari Steels Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, CGST- Dehradun - 2022 (3) TMI 49 - CESTAT NEW DELHI Supreme Court at 2008 (223) E.L.T. A170 (S.C.)]. 18. Rama Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng law has been defined under Section 2(48) of the CGST Act, 2017 as under: (48) existing law means any law, notification, order, rule or regulation relating to levy and collection of duty or tax on goods or services or both passed or made before the commencement of this Act by Parliament or any Authority or person having the power to make such law, notification, order, rule or regulation. 6. I find that the Larger Bench while answering the reference as to whether the appeal is maintainable before the CGST Appellate Tribunal and held that the appellant is not entitled to file an appeal against the order passed under Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act before the Appellate Tribunal, as Section 112 of the CGST Act allows appeal against the order passed under Section 107 or Section 108 of the CGST Act. Therefore, the Larger Bench came to the conclusion that appeal against the order passed under Section 142 (6) of the CGST Act is maintainable before this Bench. I find that as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the provisions of Section 142 (9) are parimateria with those of Section 146. If an interpretation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Cenvat credit in terms of Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. Both the authorities have held that refund is time-barred in view of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Here it is relevant to reproduce the said provision of Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act, 2017 which is reproduced hereinbelow for reference. (b) where any return, furnished under the existing law, is revised after the appointed day but within the time limit specified for such revision under the existing law and if, pursuant to such revision, any amount is found to be refundable or Cenvat credit is found to be admissible to any taxable person, the same shall be refunded to him in cash under the existing law, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the said law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and the amount rejected, if any, shall not be admissible as input tax credit under this Act. 5.1 Further I find that it is a settled legal position that if there is a conflict between the substantive provision of the statute and the Rules framed thereunder then it is the statute which will have a overriding effect and in the present c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
