The summary focuses on the refund claim rejection based on the ground that the amount paid under Reverse...

The summary focuses on the refund claim rejection based on the ground that the amount paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) is not admissible u/r 9(1)(bb) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and was hence ineligible for transition as input tax credit u/s 142(8)(a) of CGST Act. It highlights that Rule 9(1)(e), not Rule 9(1)(bb), is applicable for RCM payments, and credit cannot be denied, citing the POLYGENTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. case. Regarding transition of credit, it states that u/ss 142 and 140 of the CGST Act, the appellant was eligible for TRAN-1 credit, and the rejection citing non-declaration in Service Tax returns was hyper-technical. Section 142(8)(b) mandates refunding eligible credit in cash. The Adfert Technologies case upheld transitional credit as a vested right. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X