Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 124 - AT - Central ExciseJurisdiction - genuineness of transfer of Cenvat Credit to GST Tran-1 - competence of the Commissioner Appeal who has passed the impugned order on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) as Central Excise officer has no competence to adjudicate the issue with respect to the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The foremost perusal of the order under challenge, the preamble thereof clarify that the Order-in-Appeal has been passed by Sugrive Meena, Commissioner (Appeals) not only for the Central Excise but also for the CGST, Jaipur. This particular perusal makes it clear that the contention of Department is wrong and is therefore not acceptable. Coming to the another contention that order assailed in the impugned appeal pertains to the provisions of CGST, it is observed that the amount in question admittedly is the closing balance of Cenvat Credit for the month of June, 2017 as is apparent from para 2 of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 19.11.2018 - Admittedly, that is the amount reflected in the ER-1 return only. Admittedly, the revised return is also the excise return. Thus it becomes clear that the remaining amount involved herein is not the amount with respect to the provisions of CGST but is the Cenvat Credit balance lying with the appellant of the excise law era though proximate to the time of launch of new GST law. The said act came into force from 1.7.2017 and the amount in question is of June 2017. This perusal falsify the another contention raised by the department. The fact still remains that the amount in question is the amount for the period of which Central Excise Act is not applicable. Department has failed to produce on record to show that figures mentioned in the revised return of 16.7.2017 about the amount lying as balance of Cenvat Credit were correct figures and thus credit availed on Rs. 59,86,899/-. instead of Rs.55,15,048/-, that is the amount for an amount Rs.4,71,851/- is wrongly availed - keeping in view that by the time this return was revised the appointed date has already arrived, whereafter the fund as shown in the ER-1 was to be transferred into TRANS-1. The amount of credit in question being taken on the amount of return of 10.7.2017 and that the return is impressed as correct also in absence of any evidence by the department to falsify the same and in absence of any response of the department to the intimation letter dated 17.7.2017, the findings confirming the reversal of the impugned amount are held to be are not sustainable. The contentions of the department challenging the competence of Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|