CESTAT grants CVD and SAD refund under Section 142(3) and (6) when CENVAT credit unavailable due to missed filing deadlines

CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting refund of CVD and SAD components under Section 142(3) and (6) of CGST Act, 2017. The appellant could not avail CENVAT credit as payments were made after the cut-off dates for filing ER-1 (30.06.2017) and TRAN-1 (27.12.2017) returns. The tribunal held that cash refund was permissible since credit was unavailable under GST regime, applying the Doctrine of Necessity given the circumstances of EPCG authorization regularization for non-fulfillment of export obligations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to avail CENVAT credit on CVD and SAD components paid on imported goods.
2. Applicability of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 for refund claims.
3. Rejection of refund claims by lower authorities and Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Doctrine of Necessity in the context of refund claims.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to avail CENVAT credit on CVD and SAD components paid on imported goods:
The appellant, M/s Hindustan Equipments Private Limited, contended that they are entitled to avail CENVAT credit on the CVD and SAD components paid on imported goods under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR), as these goods were used for the manufacture of dutiable taxable goods. The Revenue did not dispute the utilization of these goods as claimed by the appellant.

2. Applicability of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 for refund claims:
The appellant argued that due to the introduction of the GST regime from 01.07.2017, they were unable to avail the credit of CVD and SAD paid towards the non-fulfillment of export obligation amounting to Rs. 49,90,979/-. They sought recourse to Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, which allows for the refund of any amount of CENVAT credit, duty, tax, or interest paid under the existing law to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the existing law and paid in cash.

3. Rejection of refund claims by lower authorities and Commissioner (Appeals):
The refund claims filed by the appellant were rejected by the lower authorities and the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that the claims were not sustainable under the existing law and that the appellant did not avail the CENVAT credit or ITC within the stipulated time frame. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the provisions of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act were not applicable to the appellant's case.

4. Doctrine of Necessity in the context of refund claims:
The Tribunal referred to the Doctrine of Necessity as discussed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in a similar context of refund, stating that the transitional provisions under Section 142 of the CGST Act were brought in to address such situations. The Tribunal also cited various judicial precedents where cash refunds of CVD and SAD were allowed under Section 142(3) and (6) of the CGST Act, 2017, due to the inaccessibility of CENVAT credit under the GST regime.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in rejecting the refund claim of the appellant. The appellant is entitled to a cash refund of CVD and SAD paid, as credit is no longer available under the GST regime. The Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief as per law, setting aside the order of the lower authority.

[Order pronounced on 06 / 06 / 2024]

---