2021 (3) TMI 885 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim under CGST Act dismissed despite Central Excise Act argument. Decision based on jurisdiction.

M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited Versus Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Chennai

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the refund claim fell under the CGST Act, outside its jurisdiction, despite recognizing the appellant's argument for ... Refund of Unutilised Credit in cash - section 142(6) of CGST Act, 2017 - applicability of Section 11B of CEA or Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, the submissions of the Learned Advocate, both verbal as also in the synopsis filed on 05.03.2021 (paragraph 10), coupled with the refund claimed through various letters, only indicate that the appellant is essentially claiming refund under Section 142(6) of the C.G.S.T. Act, per se - To decide the issue of refund under said section, CESTAT is not having jurisdiction since it pertains to examination and interpretation of a claim under the C.G.S.T. Act and to decide the eligibility or otherwise of the claimant under the C.G.S.T. Act. It, however, appears that the appellant has an arguable case for refund under Central Excise Act, but since the claim is clearly under CGST Act, 2017 the jurisdiction over which is not vested with CESTAT, the present appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Issues Involved:Challenge to the refusal of refund under Section 142(3) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 in cash.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Refund Claim by AppellantThe appellant challenged the First Appellate Authority's refusal to refund claimed under Section 142(3) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, in cash. The appellant filed a refund application for CENVAT Credit after a Division Bench of CESTAT, Chennai issued a final order. The appellant mistakenly filed the refund claim in FORM-R instead of a simple application. The claim was for unutilized CENVAT Credit due to overlapping demands by the Excise Department. The appellant reported unutilized credit in its return and reversed the ineligible credit balance. The unutilized credit was not transitioned to GST and could not be utilized due to changes in the law.Issue 2: Legal ArgumentsThe appellant argued that Section 11B did not apply as no part of the Duty or interest was claimed as a refund. The appellant relied on various judicial decisions to support their case, emphasizing that the refund claim was not under Section 11B or Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant contended that the unutilized credit was payment under protest and not subject to the limitation under Section 11B.Issue 3: Revenue's PositionThe Revenue representative relied on the impugned order and cited legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision and a High Court ruling. The Revenue argued that the principles from a specific High Court case were not applicable to the appellant's situation.Issue 4: Tribunal's AnalysisThe Tribunal observed that the crux of the case was the refund of unutilized credit under Section 142(6) of the CGST Act, not under Section 11B or Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004. The Tribunal analyzed various judicial precedents related to refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It concluded that the appellant's claim fell under the CGST Act, not within the jurisdiction of CESTAT, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the claim falling under the CGST Act, which was outside its jurisdiction, despite acknowledging the appellant's arguable case for refund under the Central Excise Act. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal arguments, precedents, and the specific nature of the refund claim made by the appellant.