TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny other amount paid under the existing law, shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him, shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provision of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act (unjust enrichment). Further from a conjoint reading of subsection (3) (5) and (8A) of Section 142 of the CGST Act it is evident than that an assessee is entitled to claim refund of CVD and SAD paid after the appointed day, under the existing law, and such claim has to be disposed of according to the provisions of the existing law. As the Appellant was admittedly entitled to Cenvat credit of the said amount of Rs. 3,28,75,733/-, which is now no longer available due to implementation of GST regime, it is held that they are entitled to refund of the said amount. Thus, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. Appeal allowed - HON BLE Mr. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Karan Talwar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P. Amaresh, Authorised Representatives for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have jurisdiction under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act to entertain the claim of refund and further it was not a case of excess/erroneous payment of duty. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 17.08.2020 and the total refund claim for Rs. 3,28,75,733/- (CVD + SAD) was rejected on contest. It was also observed that there is no provision/notification/ rule/regulation in the existing law prior to 01.07.2017, allowing for cash refund of cenvatable components on the grounds that input tax credit cannot be availed during the GST Regime. Further observed, the cenvatable component of duty paid during the alternate taxation regime cannot be a ground for seeking cash refund under Section 142(3). 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee is before this Tribunal. 7. It is submitted that the subject issue is no longer res integra as the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bosch Electrical Drive India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax, Chennai 2023 (12) TMI 1145 CESTAT Chennai-LB] wherein it has been held that the only way to get the refund of the amount which otherwise would have been available under Cenvat, is to rely on Section 142(3) and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as Cenvat Credit, can be taken as cash refund under Sec.142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 was considered and has held as under: 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that under transitional provision under section 142(3) of CGST Act, the limitation has been done away with and the only thing required for refund under the facts and circumstances is to see whether unjust enrichment is attracted. In the facts and circumstances, I hold that no unjust enrichment is attracted as the appellant have admittedly paid service tax in August, 2018 out of their own pocket. Accordingly, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. The adjudicating authority is directed to grant refund within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with interest under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. [Emphasis supplied] 16. I find that the ratio laid down in the above case law is also squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 17. Now coming to the case law of Servo Packaging Ltd and Aurobindo Pharma Ltd cases, cited by learned AR, subsequently Chennai Bench itself has passed another Order holding that Appellant would be eligible for cash refund. Fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9) TMI 801 CESTAT, HYDERABAD] M/s Indo Tooling Pvt Ltd., Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax Central Excise, Indore [2022 (3) TMI 1100 CESTATNEW DELHI] M/s Jai Mateshwaari Steels Pvt Ltd., Vs Commissioner, CGST, Dehradun [2022 (3) TMI 49 CESTAT-NEW DELHI] M/s Jagannath Polymers Pvt Ltd., Vs Commissioner, CGST, Jaipur [ 2021 (12) TMI 736 CESTAT-NEW DELHI] Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Tax, Hydrabad [2024 (2) TMI 367 CESTAT-HYDERABAD] Sri Chakra Poly Plast India Pvt Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal-GST [Excise Appeal No. 30372 of 2022 CESTAT-Hyderabad] 11. Learned AR for Revenue have opposed the appeal relying on the impugned order. He has also relied upon the rulings and findings as follows: Final Order No. A/85339/2023 D.O.D. 03.02.2023 M/s Galaxy Surfactants Ltd., Vs CCE Raigad Kaleeshari Refinery P Ltd., Vs Commr CGST CEX, Chennai [2021 (378) ELT 655 (Tri-Chennai)] Interim Order No. 40021/2023 D.O.D. 21.12.2023 Bosch Electrical Drive India Pvt Ltd., Vs CGST C.Ex Servo Packing Ltd., Vs Commr of CGST CCE, Puducherry [2020 (373) ELT 550 (Tri-Chennai)] Union of India Vs Filco Trade Centre Pvt Ltd., [2022 (63) GSTL 162 (SC)] Union of India V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
