Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 744 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of CENVAT Credit where the balance of the amount as on the appointed day has been carried forward/debited/reversed under this Act - proviso to Section 142(3) of CGST Act - decisions relied not applicable to the facts of the present case - HELD THAT:- When the appellant filed the refund claim for the respective periods, there was no facility to debit the refund claim in ER-2 Returns after the GST Act came into force. It is also found that by the time the refund claim was filed, the appellant had already carried forward the closing balance of credit as on 30.06.2017 through TRAN-1. Further, it is found that since no Return in ER-2 could be filed under GST Law and the appellant in order to satisfy the debit condition under Para 2(h) of the Notification No.27/2012, debited the refund claim amount in GSTR-3B in respective month, in fact, the credit was reversed under GST Law at the time of filing refund claim. An identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/S. GLOBAL ANALYTICS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. & CENTRAL EXCISE [2019 (7) TMI 1185 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein the Hon’ble CESTAT on an identical set of facts has held as denial of refund is not in accordance with law. It is very strange that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to give any finding on the above relied upon decisions and he has placed reliance on decisions which are not relevant to the facts of the present case. The decisions relied upon by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order does not deal with the subject involved in these cases. The rejection of the refund under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No.27/2012 is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|