TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant on 26.2.2018 with respect to unutilised credit for the three different periods, i.e. (i) for the period October, 2016 to December, 2016 for an amount of Rs. 9,49,691/- and (ii) for the period January 17 to March 2017 for an amount of Rs. 6,15,352/- and (iii) for the period April 17 to June 17 for an amount of Rs. 10,52,387/-. The refund claim of October, 2016 to December, 2016 were rejected as being barred by time. Vide Order-in-Original No. 08-10 3147/2020-21 dated 29.7.2020, the same order itself rejected the remaining two other claims on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Para 2 (h) of Notification No. 27/2012 dated 18.6.2012. The appeal against the said order-in-original has been rejected vide the order under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g during transitional period since was not transferred to the electronic ledger, but was shown as amount reversed in the accounts of appellant. The same is statutorily permissible in terms of section 142 of GST law. Hence, rejecting the claim for want of compliance of clause (h) of said notification, the ignorance of changes of the transitional phase, Commissioner (Appeals) is mentioned to have committed an error. Order under challenge is therefore, prayed to be set aside. Learned Counsel lays emphasis on the following case laws: 1. CCE, Pune III vs Bora Agro Foods [2015 (11) TMI 1338-CESTAT Mum]; 2. M/s. Thorogood Associates India Pvt Ltd. vs CCT, Bangalore, Karnataka [2021-TIOL-484-CESTAT-Bang] 3. Inguest Technologies Software (P) L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther the Books of accounts of the appellants / private record can be considered as record admissible into evidence or as to whether it is statutory document. I observe that Hon'ble Madras in the case of BNP Paribas Global Securities Operations Pvt Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise reported in [2021 (4) TMI 783] has held that for the transaction pertaining to the period prior to 30.6.2017, the assessee since could not file the ST 3 return post July, 2017, any reversal/ credit shown in his private accounts/ the Books of accounts become the statutory documents as admissible in evidence. Further perusal of this decision shows that the facts of the said case were identical to that of present one in the terms that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r that such claim is to be dealt with in terms of earlier existing law. The first proviso of this section though talks about the amount lying to be have lapsed but what has been mentioned to be lapsed will be rejected amount of refund not on the ground of coming into effect of a new law but on the ground of ineligible refund. Apparently and admittedly. there is no reason showing that the refund was otherwise not available to the appellant. Second proviso of this provision is abundantly clear that the amount which stand entered otherwise on the appointed date, refund thereof shall not be allowed. These observations about section 142 of the GST Act, to my opinion, are sufficient to hold that Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....VAT credit balance. The only option was to show its reversal in the Books of accounts. Such reversal still amounts to non availment of Credit and refund whereof remains eligible. I draw my support from the decisions in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, NOIDA vs M/s. Kiwi Technologies India Pvt Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 689 CESTAT, Allahabad]. Tribunal Bangalore also in the case of M/s. Thorogood Associates India Pvt Ltd. vs CCT, Bangalore, Karnataka (supra) has held as under: "6. .......Further, I find that when the appellant filed the refund claim in February 2018, by that time, the erstwhile Service Tax Regime was repealed with GST Regime and the refund claim was filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and there was no occasion ....