Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (9) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant's record, Department observed that the appellant had filed ER-1 return on 10.7.2017 with closing balance amount of Rs. 59,86,899/-. Input tax credit (ITC) of the same was taken in GST TRANS-1 under Central Tax. The department also observed that revised ER-1 was filed for the month of June, 2017 by the appellant on 16.07.2017 with the closing balance of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.55,15,048/- .Based thereupon the department alleged about the excess carrying forward of the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 4,71,851/- shown as ITC in TRANS-1 by the assessee. The said difference could not be clarified by the appellant. Resultantly a Show Cause Notice No. 07 dated 19.11.2018 was served upon the appellant proposing to disallow the Cenvat Cred .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion of demand of reversal of impugned amount of this amount that the appellant is also in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. I have heard Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue Department and Shri Alok Kothari, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent- Assessee. 5. Learned Departmental Representative has mentioned that the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) about disallowance of availment of Cenvat Credit to the extent of Rs. 4,71,851/- have no infirmity. Para 6 to 8 of Order-in Original is impressed upon. However, it is submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) was not competent to pass the said order. Learned Departmental Representative has impressed upon that the Order-in-Original was passed by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant was Rs. 59,86,899/- was shown under the ER-1 dated 10.7.2017. The revised return was fled due to various reasons as is apparent from the letter written to the Superintendent, CGST Kishan garh, Ajmer dated 17.7.2017 informing about the clarifying mistake. It is submitted that since the amount in question was also the amount of Cenvat Credit lying as closing balance of the payment and the credit was suo moto taken. However, an intimation was given vide the aforesaid statement dated 17.7.2017 was already given to the department. Commissioner Appeals has set aside the order observing no malafide or the suppression on the part of the appellant. However Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate about the intimation of the clerical er .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ttedly 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. This particular perusal is sufficient to hold that the amount in question pertains to the period to which Central Excise Act, 1944 was applicable. 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ANS-1. This particular exercise of option by the appellant is wrongly held to be a subject matter of GST Act. 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. But in the absence of said evidence, however, in the light of letter of intimation by the appellant to the competent authority about the clerical error for the amount of Cenvat Credit in the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates