TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistration of the appellant in the Service Tax Regime. The contention of the department is that the CENVAT credit has been wrongly reversed by the Bangalore Unit as it is a distinct person in the GST regime and the same was required to be reversed by the Delhi unit - This view taken by the department ignores the factual position that CENVAT credit pertains to pre-GST regime when the Bangalore Unit was included in the centralized registration of the Delhi unit. Thus, as the Bangalore Unit was part of centralized registration in the service tax regime, the appellant correctly transferred the CENVAT credit as CGST input to its Bangalore Unit in terms of section 140(8) of the 2017 Act. The refund claim has also been rejected for the reason that the total CENVAT credit claimed as refund in Form-A does not match with the CENVAT credit availed in the ST-3 return filed for all the four quarters covering the period in dispute from July 2016 to June 2017 - This mismatch has occurred on account of the fact that Swachh Bharat Cess paid by the appellant at the time of filing of return was not reported in the ST-3 returns, since there was no column for mentioning it in the ST-3 returns. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 17 after the appointed date i.e. 01.07.2017 under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 [the 2017 Act] in terms of rule 5 of the Credit Rules read with the Notification dated 18.06.2012 for the reason that it was exclusively engaged in export of services. The appellant claimed CENVAT credit of Rs. 16,99,60,721/- (excluding Swachh Bharat Cess amounting to Rs. 56,42,239/-) lying in its books of account on 30.06.2017 through Tran-1 filed on 11.08.2017 in its Delhi GST Registration immediately after filing of the last ST-3 return. The CENVAT credit claimed through Tran-1 in Delhi GST Registration was transferred by the appellant to its Bangalore Unit in terms of the proviso to section 140(8) of the 2017 Act since the Bangalore Unit, having the same PAN, was included in the centralized registration of the appellant in the Service Tax Regime. Thereafter, the Bangalore unit of the appellant reversed the accumulated CENVAT credit of Rs. 16,99,60,721/- in its GST returns. 5. The Assistant Commissioner issued a deficiency memo dated 17.09.2018 stating that the said refund claims were not admissible to the appellant. The appellant filed replies, but four separate show cause notices, al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on dated 18.06.2012; (ii) As the refund claims were filed after 01.07.2017 but within time, the appellant claimed the whole CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 16,99,60,721/- lying in the books of account as on 30.06.2017 through Tran-1 filed on 11.08.2017 in the Delhi GST Registration; (iii) After claiming the credit through Tran-1 in the Delhi GST registration, the appellant transferred the CENVAT credit to its Bangalore Unit in terms of the proviso to section 140(8) of the 2017 Act, since the Bangalore unit was included in the centralized registration of the appellant; (iv) In terms of section 140(8) of the 2017 Act, the appellant correctly availed the CENVAT credit in its electronic credit ledger in the Delhi GST registration and correctly transferred the said credit to its Bangalore unit bearing the same PAN and covered under the centralized registration. The Bangalore unit of the appellant, therefore, correctly reversed the accumulated CENVAT credit of Rs. 16,99,60,732/- in its GST returns. This was in accordance with Circular dated 04.09.2018; (v) The Commissioner (Appeals) committed an error in holding that the CENVAT credit was wrongly reversed by the Bangalore unit as it is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nput credit. Sub-section (1) of section 140 provides that a registered person shall be entitled to take, in his electronic credit ledger, credit of the amount of CENVAT credit carried forward in the return relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day. Sub-section (8) of section 140 is reproduced below: (8) Where a registered person having centralised registration under the existing law has obtained a registration under this Act, such person shall be allowed to take, in his electronic credit ledger, credit of the amount of CENVAT credit carried forward in a return, furnished under the existing law by him, in respect of the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that if the registered person furnishes his return for the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day within three months of the appointed day, such credit shall be allowed subject to the condition that the said return is either an original return or a revised return where the credit has been reduced from that claimed earlier: Provided further that the registered person s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after claiming the credit through Tran-1 in Delhi GST registration, the appellant transferred the CENVAT credit to its Bangalore Unit in terms of the proviso to section 140(8) of the 2017 Act as the Bangalore Unit was included in the centralized registration of the appellant in the Service Tax regime. Thereafter, the Bangalore Unit of the appellant reversed the accumulated CENVAT credit of Rs.16,99,60,721/- in its GST returns. Circular No. 58/32/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018 permits CENVAT credit under the existing law to be reversed through GST returns. 19. The contention of the department is that the CENVAT credit has been wrongly reversed by the Bangalore Unit as it is a distinct person in the GST regime and the same was required to be reversed by the Delhi unit. 20. This view taken by the department ignores the factual position that CENVAT credit pertains to pre-GST regime when the Bangalore Unit was included in the centralized registration of the Delhi unit. Thus, as the Bangalore Unit was part of centralized registration in the service tax regime, the appellant correctly transferred the CENVAT credit as CGST input to its Bangalore Unit in terms of section 140(8) of the 2017 Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that the entire credit which was carried forward in TRAN-1 stood reversed by the appellant voluntarily in its GSTR-3B filed for the month of April 2018. 7.2 The above facts, according to me, are sufficient compliances with the condition at paragraph 2(h) since post G.S.T., the scenario is different than the one prevailing prior to G.S.T. regime. Otherwise, it would become an impossible task for an assessee, more so when the filing of ST-3 returns itself was done away with. 8. I also note that the Board has clarified the above position in its Circular No. 58/32/2018-G.S.T. (supra) and I also note that more or less the same view is expressed in all the orders relied on by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant. (emphasis supplied) 25. In view of the factual position emerging in the present case and the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, condition 2(h) of the Notification dated 18.06.2012 stands satisfied. 26. The refund claim has also been rejected for the reason that the total CENVAT credit claimed as refund in Form-A does not match with the CENVAT credit availed in the ST-3 return filed for all the four quarters covering the period in dispute from July 2016 to June 2017. 27. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
