Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 433 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of CENVAT in cash - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - transfer of such credit as Input Tax credit in CGST Act or cash refund - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - N/N. 27/2012- CE(NT), dated 18.06.2012 - first proviso to Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017. Held that:- The proviso to Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 deals with the cases of rejection of credit of CENVAT Credit. It specifically indicates that such amounts shall lapse. It is true, that with better planning, the appellants could have taken back the credit of CENVAT of refund which was rejected in terms of Para 2(i) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT), dated 18.06.2012. Such credit would have seamlessly got transferred as input tax credit under GST into their new account post introduction of CGST, but they have not done so. Judicial discipline demands the lower authority follows the decision of the higher authority. Once it is decided by the CESTAT that the appellant is not entitled to refund of some amount of the CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004, the lower authority cannot sanction such refund as it would constitute judicial indiscipline. Therefore, the lower authority was correct in rejecting the request of the appellant. A plain reading of Section 140 of the CGST Act shows that it provides for transfer of CENVAT credit lying in balance in the assessee’s account just before the CGST Act came into force. It does not provide for CENVAT credit which may have accrued to the assessee prior to this date but which was not in balance in their books of account. CESTAT was created under the Customs Act, 1962 and has been given powers under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the powers of interpretation and application of these laws alone is the jurisdiction of the CESTAT. However, when other laws have a bearing on the application of these three laws, (e.g.: SEZ Act, Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, various Environmental laws), interpretation of such laws also falls within the scope of CESTAT insofar as they affect the application of the Customs Act, Central Excise Act and Finance Act, 1994. The appellant’s claim for refund of the disputed amount of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 has already been rejected by this bench in their previous appeal. Therefore, they are not entitled to refund of CENVAT credit. The argument that they could have planned differently and taken back the credit before CGST Act came into force and could have transferred it as Input Tax credit and since they have not done so and hence they should now be paid in cash has no legal backing. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|