TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and interpretation of a claim under the C.G.S.T. Act and to decide the eligibility or otherwise of the claimant under the C.G.S.T. Act. It, however, appears that the appellant has an arguable case for refund under Central Excise Act, but since the claim is clearly under CGST Act, 2017 the jurisdiction over which is not vested with CESTAT, the present appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. - Excise Appeal No. 41533 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 41399/2021 - Dated:- 22-3-2021 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. S. Vishnupriya, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Vikas Jhajharia, Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER By this appeal, the appellant is inter alia challenging the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and disallowed the balance; the net effect of which made the appellant eligible to a credit of ₹ 39,09,292/- and ineligible for the credit of ₹ 9,90,900/-; (vii) The appellant had reported unutilized CENVAT Credit of ₹ 61,47,722/- in its ER-1 return. Subsequent to the above Final Order of CESTAT, the appellant-company had reversed the CENVAT Credit balance of ₹ 22,38,480/-, being ineligible, in its Books of Accounts during March 2018 (also reflected in the appellant s letter dated 27.03.2019 filed before the Superintendent/Assistant Commissioner, Pallavaram Division); (viii) The unutilized credit lying in the appellant s ER-1 return could not be utilized due to change in law with G.S.T. having been introdu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (vii) C.C.E. v. M/s. GTN Engineering [2012 (281) E.L.T. 185 (Mad.)]; (viii) M/s. MS Great India Steel Fabricators v. C.C.E. S.T., Panchakula [2019 (3) T.M.I. 103 CESTAT, Chandigarh)]; (ix) M/s. Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Panchakula [2019 (7) T.M.I. 1242 CESTAT, Chandigarh)]; (x) M/s. Toshiba Machine Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr of Central Tax, Outer Commissionerate, Chennai [2018 (9) T.M.I. 1576 CESTAT, Chennai]; (xi) C.C.E., Coimbatore v. M/s. Pricol Ltd. [2015 (320) E.L.T. 703 (Mad.)]; (xii) C.C.E., Pondicherry v. Church s Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA) ors. [2009 (2) T.M.I. 437 CESTAT, Chennai]; (xiii) M/s. Sapa Extrustion Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Tax, Tirupati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 333 (Tri. Mum.)]: This Order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal is on refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 05/2006-C.E.(N.T.) dated 14.03.2006, which itself prescribed a time-limit as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and more or less similar to the case of M/s. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. (supra). (ii) C.C.E., Chennai v. M/s. Foxconn India (P) Ltd. [2010 (8) T.M.I. 468 CESTAT, Chennai]: Here also, the refund claim was under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. (iii) C.C.E. and Cus., Surat-I v. M/s. Swagat Synthetics [2008 (232) E.L.T. 413 (Guj.)]: The Hon ble High Court has categorically ruled that for refund sought of unutilized deemed credit, provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying in their CENVAT Credit account under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. (ix) M/s. Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Panchakula [2019 (7) T.M.I. 1242 CESTAT, Chandigarh)]: Refund was allowed by the FAA but the same was directed to be credited in their CENVAT Credit account. (x) M/s. Toshiba Machine Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr of Central Tax, Outer Commissionerate, Chennai [2018 (9) T.M.I. 1576 CESTAT, Chennai]: Pertains to the benefit of Notification No. 33/2012-C.E. reversing an amount of 6% which was not required to be paid for availing the Notification benefit which was claimed as refund. (xi) C.C.E., Coimbatore v. M/s. Pricol Ltd. [2015 (320) E.L.T. 703 (Mad.)]: Relates to refund vis- -vis Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
