TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch an exporter of services in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012 date 18.6.2012 is the denial of legitimate export incentive coming to the exporter of services. Same cannot be denied merely because of intervening changes. The perusal of this provisions makes it abundantly clear that refund of any duty or tax which was paid for the period prior to coming into force of the GST law can be claimed even after the appointed date of 01.07.2017. The provision itself makes it clear that such claim is to be dealt with in terms of earlier existing law - Apparently and admittedly, there is no reason showing that the refund was otherwise not available to the appellant. Second proviso of this provision is abundantly clear that the amount which stand entered otherwise on the appointed date, refund thereof shall not be allowed. These observations about section 142 of the GST Act, are sufficient to hold that Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the provisions as a whole and has wrongly held that in terms of section 142 the impugned refund was not allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) has miserably failed to observe that with the introduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r itself rejected the remaining two other claims on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Para 2 (h) of Notification No. 27/2012 dated 18.6.2012. The appeal against the said order-in-original has been rejected vide the order under challenge. Still being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Shri Sivarajan with Shri Prashant Gupta, learned Chartered Accountants for the Appellant and Ms Tamana Alam, learned Authorised Representative for the Department. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has reversed the credit in their accounts on 23.2.2018. The credit was for the pre GST era. With effect from 1.7.2017 when the new GST law came into effect, the credit of erstwhile period, the reversal thereof, was shown in the appellants own records on 23.2.2018 and the refund thereof was filed on 25.2.2018. It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has quoted section 142 of GST Act but has failed to properly apply the same to the facts of the present case. The proviso thereof has totally been ignored. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It is submitted that C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, during the period prior the CGST Act, 2017 came into effect, the said credit has apparently not been debited by the appellant, but has been reversed in the Books of accounts of the appellant. Sole controversy is as to: Whether the said reversal in the Books of Accounts instead of transfer of the said amount to the electronic ledger is a valid reversal or not. Formost it is to be checked as to whether the Books of accounts of the appellants / private record can be considered as record admissible into evidence or as to whether it is statutory document. I observe that Hon ble Madras in the case of BNP Paribas Global Securities Operations Pvt Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise reported in [2021 (4) TMI 783] has held that for the transaction pertaining to the period prior to 30.6.2017, the assessee since could not file the ST 3 return post July, 2017, any reversal/ credit shown in his private accounts/ the Books of accounts become the statutory documents as admissible in evidence. Further perusal of this decision shows that the facts of the said case were identical to that of present one in the terms that the appellants in both the cases are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also been emphasised as a ground for rejecting the claim, it is observed that no doubt this Rule mandates the transfer of entire Cenvat Credit available under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 relating to the period ending the date immediately preceding the date of 01.07.2017 in the electronic credit ledger but Rule itself talks about the compliance of Chapter XX of GST Act, 2017 for making such transfer. The said chapter and the transition provision includes section 142 CGST as has been discussed above. Once that is so, I do not find any illegality in the Act of the appellant who has reversed the Cenvat Credit of the period pertaining to the existing law to his Books of Accounts instead of transferring the same to electronic credit ledger. 8. I also observe 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 which there was 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. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
