TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate for the Appellant Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the Department ORDER Present order disposes off two appeals both arising out of common Order-in appeal No. 63/2020 dated 2.7.2020. The facts in brief relevant for the impugned adjudications are that the appellant herein is engaged in manufacture of marble slabs. During the course of audit of 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to order passed under CGST Act, 2017. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) appears to have erred in passing present order under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 whereas the impugned OIO pertains to the issue involving provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. 3. Pursuant to the said review order that the department is in appeal before this Tribunal and pursuant to the confirmation 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 ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant has submitted the return and then actually found a clerical mistake was done by filing revised return on 16.7.2017 and since there was no provision to correct the said mistake of filing a revised return from on set of new CGST law, that the mistake could not be rectified. However, the fact remains is that the closing balance of Cenvat Credit for the month of June 2017 lying with the appellant 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. The appellant has intimated the department about the amount of Cenvat Credit in revised return on 16.7.17 to be an clerical error and the amount mentioned in first return filed by the appellant was correct. But the first return also was filed when appropriate time i.e. 1.7.2017 has already reached. The appellant hence had no option but to transfer the amount of Cenvat Credit balance as ITC into TRANS-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 16.7.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
