9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit to the appellant - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the CVD and SAD was paid in respect to the imports made prior to GST regime i.e. before 01.07.2017 therefore any CVD and SAD was payable during the period prior 01.07.2017 was available as Cenvat credit. Merely because the payment was made after 01.07.2017 it will not lose the character of Cenvat credit in respect of such payment of CVD and SAD. Section 142 (3) and/or Section 142 (6) of the CGST Act, 2017 was created only to deal with the situation of the kind in the present case. The appellant was clearly entitled for the Cenvat credit of CVD and SAD prior to 01.07.2017 but since the same was paid after 01.07.2017, they were not in a position to avail the Cenvat credit and utilize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, i.e. after 1.7.2017, even though admittedly duty free raw materials were imported under pre- GST Regime i.e. prior to 30.6.2017. 1.2 In pre-GST Regime, the Appellants were entitled to avail CENVAT Credit of CVD and SAD under Rule 3(1)(vii) (viia) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, before the Appellants could avail CENVAT Credit, the Central Excise Act, 1944, was subsumed in GST Act, with effect from 1.7.2017. Consequently, the Appellants filed Refund Claim for CENVAT Credit of CVD and SAD, by way of Cash Refund under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with, Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, on the ground that the Appellants were entitled to avail and utilize CENVAT Credit of CVD and SAD paid after 1.7.2017. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise, Salem -2023 (70) G.S.T.L. 76 (Tri.- Chennai) Kobe Suspension Co Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods Service Tax, Faridabad-2024 (6) TMI 180 Chandigarh CESTAT Mithila Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Udaipur (Rajasthan)- 2022 (3) TMI 58 CESTAT New Delhi 2.1 He therefore prays that all appeals be allowed with consequential relief such as mandatory interest as applicable under the relevant law. 3. Shri Mihir G Rayka, Learned Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the only reason for rejection of refund claim given by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
