TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellants granted service tax refund under Reverse Charge Mechanism</h1> <h3>M/s. NSSL Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, CGST & central excise, Nagpur -I</h3> M/s. NSSL Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, CGST & central excise, Nagpur -I - 2021 (53) G. S. T. L. 410 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Refund of service tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism under erstwhile CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; Applicability of CGST Act, 2017 on refund claims; Interpretation of statutory provisions under Sections 142(3) and 144 of the CGST Act, 2017.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing industrial valves, availed CENVAT credit under the erstwhile CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. During the disputed period, the appellant availed various services under the Reverse Charge Mechanism but did not discharge the service tax liability promptly. The appellant later paid the service tax into the central government account belatedly. Following the repeal of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellant filed refund applications seeking a refund of the service tax paid under the Reverse Charge Mechanism. However, the jurisdictional service tax authorities rejected the refund applications, citing that input tax credit could only be claimed under the GST/CGST Act, 2017. The appellant appealed this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), whose order was the subject of challenge before the Tribunal.Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 to reject the refund applications. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's case fell under the purview of Section 144(3) of the same Act, rather than Section 142(8)(a). Section 144(3) provides for the disposal of refund claims in accordance with the provisions of the existing law, entitling the appellant to the benefit of refund of service tax paid under the erstwhile statute. The Tribunal concluded that the refund claims should be considered under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, entitling the appellant to the refund of the service tax paid.In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order that rejected the refund application. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, granting them the benefit of the refund of service tax paid under the Reverse Charge Mechanism.
TaxTMI 