2022 (11) TMI 1090 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants manufacturer refund under CGST Act, waives limitation, emphasizes GST credit reversal

M/s. Nitin Industries (Trade Name) Versus Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax, New Delhi

M/s. Nitin Industries (Trade Name) Versus Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax, New Delhi - TMI Issues:1. Rejection of refund claim of the appellant regarding cenvat credit balance as on 30.06.20172. Application of Rule 5 of CCR and Notification No.27/20123. Compliance with Section 142(3) of the CGST Act4. Onus of unjust enrichmentAnalysis:The appellant, a manufacturer of Sheet Metal Components, had accumulated cenvat credit balance as on 30.06.2017 due to mostly clearing goods for export under bond. The appellant migrated to the GST regime and filed for a refund of the cenvat credit balance. The refund claims were rejected by the lower authorities citing various grounds, including non-compliance with Notification No.27/2012 and the proviso to Section 142(3) of the CGST Act.The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, emphasizing that the refund was not allowable as per the proviso to Section 142(3) of the CGST Act and due to failure to file the refund claim within the prescribed period. The appellant was also unable to provide essential documents supporting export clearance and unjust enrichment compliance, leading to the rejection of the refund claims.The appellant contended that the closure of the factory and the decision not to restart production entitled them to a refund, citing relevant case law supporting their position. The appellant also argued that under Section 54 of the CGST Act, they were entitled to a refund of the accumulated credit, as evidenced by debiting the amount in the Electronic Credit Register (DRC-03).The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found that the appellant, apart from carrying forward the credit balance, had not resumed production or cleared taxable goods post-GST implementation. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's debiting of the amount in the electronic ledger constituted a reversal of credit transferred to the GST regime. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, subject to clearing the bar of unjust enrichment.The Tribunal waived the bar of limitation under Section 142(3) and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to grant the refund within 60 days from the date of the order, along with applicable interest as per rules.