9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was also reversed in June 2018. Therefore, it will be treated as that they have reversed the Cenvat credit. If there any delay on the part of the appellant that is only a technical lapse and the substantial benefit of the notification should not be denied for such technical lapse. The refund claim filed by appellant cannot be rejected on these technical grounds as held by the Tribunal in the case of LIGHTSPEED INDIA PARTNERS ADVISORS LLP VERSUS COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX (APPEALS) NEW DELHI ADVISORS LLP [2021 (12) TMI 621 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein this Tribunal observed that 'the Commissioner (Appeals) has miserably failed to observe that with the introduction of the GST Act filing of ST-3 return was absolutely done away due to whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itially rejected alleging that appellant did not fulfill the condition of para -2(h) of the Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 wherein appellant is required to reverse Cenvat credit before filing the refund claim at the time of claiming the refund. The appellant submits that after introduction of the GST regime, there was no provision for reversal of Cenvat credit in their Cenvat credit account. Therefore, they debited the same in their books of accounts and produced it before the authorities below. The appellant also submitted that for the period January to June 2017 they have transferred the credit to Tran-1 after GST regime. Therefore, they are not eligible for the Cenvat credit. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired to reverse the Cenvat credit and as the reversal has taken place in June 2018 and if the refund claim are filed after June 2018, the refund claims could have been barred by limitation. Therefore, the refund claims were rightly rejected by the authorities below. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. In this case, the sole is issue that in terms of Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012, the assessee is required to reverse the Cenvat credit to claim refund. 7. Admittedly, in this case the appellant has debited Cenvat credit in their books of accounts which shows reversal of Cenvat credit. Although they have transferred Cenvat credit to Tran-1 for the period January 2017 to June 2017 but same was also reversed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no other possible way with the appellant to debit and to reflect the existing credit in its ST-3 return. The Notification No. 27/2012 dated 18.6.2012 with its condition No 2(h), to my opinion, was applicable only during the period prior to GST regime. Since the GST regime has done away with the ST 3 return, there remain no provision in GST system to reflect the refund claim in the CENVAT credit balance. The only option was to show its reversal in the Books of accounts. Such reversal still amounts to non availment of Credit and refund whereof remains eligible. I draw my support from the decisions in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, NOIDA vs M/s. Kiwi Technologies India Pvt Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 689 CESTAT, Allahabad]. Tribunal Bangal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant to claim refund is not disputed and it is also not disputed that the appellant has debited the amount claimed in the GSTR3B. I also find that the Tribunal has consistently held that credit reversed without being utilized considered as if credit has not been taken. Hence the credit reversed in GSTR-3B tantamounts to not been taken credit in clause 1. Further in the case of JCT Limited Vs. CCE, Jalandhar and Ludhiana [2015(2) TMI 600- CESTAT NEW DELHI), this Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. Vs. UOI [2004(7) TMI 98] which was based on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wire (P) Ltd. Vs. CC, Nagpur [1996(81) ELT 3 (SC)], he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the refund claim is not such a lapse that it would debar the appellants from the refund. On the day of debiting the cenvat account they have fulfilled the conditions of the notification. In that event they become entitled to refund on that date. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside, the appeal is allowed with consequential benefit. ....." 5. In view of my discussion above, I find that the appellant has reversed the credit in the GSTR-3B; but there was only a delay in debiting the same and this delay is procedural delay and will not disentitle the appellant from claiming the refund. By following the ratio of the Tribunal in the case of Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, I am of the opinion that the impugned order rejecting th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
