Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Pre-GST unutilized Credit of Education Cess, SHEC and KKC eligible to be refunded

Bimal jain
Dredging company wins refund for unutilized cenvat credit under Section 11B; previous judgment supports vested rights. The CESTAT, Chennai Bench ruled in favor of a company engaged in dredging services, allowing the refund of unutilized cenvat credit for Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education Cess, and Krishi Kalyan Cess. The company had filed a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which was initially rejected by the Revenue Department. The bench referenced a previous judgment, emphasizing that credits earned are vested rights and should not be extinguished due to legal changes unless explicitly stated. Consequently, the rejection of the refund claim was deemed unjustified and the order was set aside. (AI Summary)

The CESTAT, Chennai Bench in the matter ofM/S. INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2022 (6) TMI 822 - CESTAT CHENNAI] set aside the impugned order pertaining to the rejection of refund of unutilized cenvat credit of Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education cess (“SHEC”) and Krishi Kalyan cess (“KKC”) and has held that such rejection is not justified and assesses is entitled to file the refund claim.

Facts:

M/s International Seaport Dredging Pvt. Ltd.(“the Appellant”) is a registered company, engaged in providing dredging services, filed refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944(“the Central Excise Act”) for the refund of unutilized cenvat credit availed on Education cess, SHEC and KKC and carried forward the same to TRAN-1 after the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (“GST”). The Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) by an order (“the impugned order”) rejected the same holding that under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the CGST Act”) refund can be sought only for eligible duties and such duties excludes refund of cess.  Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner.

Issue:

  • Whether the Appellant is eligible for refund of Education cess, SHEC and KKC lying unutilized in his Cenvat account?

Held:

The CESTAT, Chennai Bench in M/S. INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2022 (6) TMI 822 - CESTAT CHENNAI] held as under:

  • Relied upon, the judgement of CESTAT in the case SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CE & ST, GURGAON-I [2021 (5) TMI 954 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH]in which it was held that the assessee is entitled to file the refund of Education Cess, SHEC and KKC and accordingly the refund claim is to be allowed subject to verification of the records.
  • Further stated that, when GST Regime came in force, credit lying in account of assessee was allowed to be transferred to GST Regime.Also, credits earned were vested right and such right would not be extinguished with change of law unless there was specific provision which would debar such refund.
  • Held that, the Appellant is entitled to file the refund claim and rejection of refund is not justified, accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles