9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1468X 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(3) of CGST Act, 2017? HELD THAT:- From the plain reading of the Section 142(3), it is observed that the said Section deals with the eventualities when the assesse is not in a position to avail the Cenvat credit. Therefore, the amount of Cenvat credit is refunded in cash, under the said provision. The Section 142(3) also deals with the amount which is accrued prior to GST regime. Accordingly, the situation arose in the present case is exactly the same for which provision of Section 142(3) was enacted. The amount of service tax was pertaining to the period prior to 01.07.2017 which is payable under the existing law. Subsequently, the said amount became admissible as a Cenvat credit under existing law an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt the grounds for rejection no other issues have been dealt by the sanctioning authority such as admissibility of the input service for Cenvat credit, unjust enrichment and relevant documents verification. Accordingly, the matter deserves to be remanded to the adjudicating authority only for the limited purpose. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. - HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR For the Appellant : Shri Vinay Kansara, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Prashant Tripathi, Superintendent (AR) ORDER RAMESH NAIR The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant is entitled for refund of the Service Tax paid on Scientific and Technical Consulta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 2022 (63) GSTL 238 (Tri.-Chennai) Indo Tooling Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of CGST, C. Ex., Indore- 2022 (61) GSTL 595 (Tri.- Del.) Circor flow Technologies India Pvt Ltd Vs. Pr. Commissioner of GST C. Ex. Coimbatore- 2022 (59) GSTL 63 (Tri.- Chennai) 3. Shri Prashant Tripathi, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the 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 refund claim made by the appellant under Section 142(3) on the ground that since the service tax itself was paid during the GST regime when the Cenvat Credit Rules were not existing, the service tax paid during that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the period prior to 01.07.2017 which is payable under the existing law. Subsequently, the said amount became admissible as a Cenvat credit under existing law and since the same cannot be availed as Cenvat credit after 01.07.2017, the only option is to refund the same in terms of Section 142(3). 4.1 As regard the contention of the Lower Authorities that refund is barred due to Section 142(8)(a) of CGST Act, 2017, the same is reproduced below:- (8) (a) where in pursuance of an assessment or adjudication proceedings instituted, whether before, on or after the appointed day, under the existing law, any amount of tax, interest, fine or penalty becomes recoverable from the person, the same shall, unless recovered under the existing law, be rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
