9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgments cited specially the case of M/s NACL Industries Ltd., [ 2024 (9) TMI 507 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] , which has dealt with the same issue and held that refund was not permissible in certain situation where it was otherwise not eligible under existing law. It is found that in the Larger Bench decision of M/s Bosch Electrical Drive India Pvt Ltd. [ 2023 (12) TMI 1145 - CESTAT CHENNAI-LB] , the issue referred to was not regarding the admissibility of refund under Section 142(3) in the given facts, rather it was with regard to maintainability of such appeal before CESTAT and which was decided by the Larger Bench by holding that such appeals are maintainable. This is not the issue in the present appeal as it has already admitted and is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds namely non-acceptance of the documents submitted by them for the claim as not sufficient as also on the ground that Section 142(3) does not provide for grant of cash refund in the given facts of the case as claim has to be examined under the existing law and said refunds would not have been admissible under the existing law. 3. Commissioner (Appeals) has also gone through the same provisions and has come to the conclusion that refund is not permissible in the facts of the case. He has categorically held that the in the circumstances there was no provision for claiming refund on service tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) or input services under the provision of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 or the Finance Act 1994 read with prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24 dated 18.01.2024. 5. On the other hand, Learned AR has, apart from reiterating the grounds taken by the Original Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals), submits that the issue is no longer res-integra and the matter has already been considered by various Benches including this Bench and it has been held that Section 142(3) is not a separate provision for grant of cash refund and the claim has to be examined only in terms of the existing law and the provisions under Section 142(3) of CGST Act provides that only when the person is otherwise entitled for refund under the existing laws, he will be entitled to cash refund. Since, in this case, under the existing law, as held by the Commissioner (Appeals), there is no such provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot eligible under existing law. This order has relied on the order of the Hon ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of M/s Rungta Mines Ltd., and various Tribunal s judgment including the case of M/s Servo Packaging Ltd., Vs Commr of GST CE, Puducherry [2020 (373) ELT 550 (Tri-Chennai)]. Para 12 13 of the order of M/s NACL Industries Ltd., Vs CCT, Visakhapatnam (supra) is reproduced below for ready reference: 12. Various case laws cited by the appellant in the grounds of appeal in support that Section 142(3) provides for grant of cash refund in the facts of the case is not tenable as the scope of Section 142(3) has been clearly explained by Hon ble High Court of Jharkhand in M/s Rungta Mines Ltd., and in the present appeal it has been cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Advance Licence. Hence, claim as to the benefit of CENVAT just as a normal import which is suffering duty is also unavailable for the very same reasons, also since the rules/procedures/conditions governing normal import compared to the one under Advance Authorization may vary because of the nature of import. 11. The import which would have normally suffered duty having escaped due to the Advance Licence, but such import being a conditional one which ultimately stood unsatisfied, naturally loses the privileges and the only way is to tax the import. The governing Notification No. 18/2015 (supra), paragraph 2.35 of the FTP which requires execution of bond, etc., in case of non-fulfilment of export obligation and paragraph 4.50 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, the appellants were entitled to claim refund under Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017. In the case of M/s NCL Industries Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad GST Final Order No. A/30048/2024 dated 18.01.2024, the Bench relied on certain judgments of Hyderabad and Chennai Benches which had granted the refund. The Bench also took into account the Larger Bench decision of M/s Bosch Electrical Drive India Pvt Ltd., in the Interim Order No. 40021/2023 dated 21.12.2023 and Mumbai Bench s order in the case of M/s East West Seeds Pvt Ltd., by the Learned AR cannot be applied. 9. I find that in the Larger Bench decision of M/s Bosch Electrical Drive India Pvt Ltd., the issue referred to was not regarding the admissibility of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
