2021 (10) TMI 1345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant vide letter dated 19.01.2018 sought refund of the amount of Service Tax paid by them under Section 142(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act ('C.G.S.T. Act' for short), 2017 on the ground that the said amount is eligible as CENVAT Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to reject the refund claim filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not substantiated their eligibility to avail the CENVAT Credit and there is no provision under the existing law to claim refund of Service Tax paid under reverse charge mechanism. The appellant filed its reply to the Show Cause Notice denying the allegations; that the proposal to deny the refund claim was confirmed in the Order-in-Original No. 19/2019-R dated 24.04.2019 on the ground that the appellant had not paid Service Tax in time and that as per Section 142(7)(a) of the C.G.S.T. Act, the amount paid by the appellant is in the nature of 'tax arrear' which is not eligible as CENVAT Credit. Against the said Order-in-Original, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II): C.G.S.T. and Central Excise, Chennai, who vide O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AT BANGALORE] (xvi) Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. [2019 (26) G.S.T.L. 196 (Tri. - Chan.)] (xvii) Oswal Casting Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner [2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 649 (Tri. - Chan.)] (xviii) SMG International v. Commissioner [2019 (21) G.S.T.L. 446 (Tri. - Chan.)] (xix) WMW Metal Fabrics Limited v. Commissioner [2021 (8) TMI 657 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] (xx) Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner [2021 (8) TMI 630 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] (xxi) NSSL Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner [2021 (8) TMI 239 - CESTAT MUMBAI] (xxii) Punjab National Bank v. Commissioner [2021 (7) TMI 326 - CESTAT BANGALORE] (xxiii) Amba Shakti Udyog Limited v. Commissioner [2020 (9) TMI 300 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] (xxiv) Metricstream Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner [2021 (6) TMI 510 - CESTAT BANGALORE] (xxv) Veer-O-Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner [2021 (4) TMI 117 - CESTAT BANGALORE] (xxvi) Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. Commissioner [2021 (3) TMI 786 - CESTAT BANGALORE] (xxvii) NRK Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner [2020 (4) TMI 344 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] (xxviii) Alpha Laboratories Ltd. v. Commissioner [2020 (4) TMI 339- CESTAT NEW DELHI] (xxix) Lupin Limited v. Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....NVAT Credit lying in balance as input credit under GST No 139,140,141,142(1), 142(2),142(9),142(10), 142(11),142(12) and 142(13) 5.5 He submits that the present issue pertains to refund of Service Tax which would have been eligible as CENVAT Credit read with Section 142(3) of the C.G.S.T. Act. In terms of this provision, the refund claim is to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the "existing law", i.e., the Central Excise Act,1944 and Finance Act, 1994. Hence, the jurisdiction to decide on the present refund claim is vested with the Officers designated under the Service Tax regime. Consequently, on appeal, the jurisdiction to decide the instant claim lies only with the CESTAT, even as per the decision in the case of M/s. United Seamless Tubular Pvt. Ltd. (supra), for the reason that the issue requires the application of Section 142(3) of the C.G.S.T. Act to the extent it modifies the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 5.6 He submits that the Hon'ble Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal is not in conflict as regards the refund claim dealt with in the present case. Consequently, there is no divergence of views requiring a reference to the Larger Bench. 6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the refund matter which was under Section 142(3) of the C.G.S.T. Act and decided the appeal. Therefore, we do not find anything wrong in referring the matter by the Learned Single Member to the Larger Bench. 10. Therefore, the reference made by the Learned Single Member is correct and legal. 11. Now the issue is as to whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in question. The refund claim was made under Section 142(3) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, which is reproduced below: "SECTION 142. Miscellaneous transitional provisions. (1) ... .... ..... (3) Every claim for refund filed by any person before, on or after the appointed day, for refund of any amount of CENVAT credit, duty, tax, interest or any other amount paid under the existing law, shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) : Provided that where any claim for refund of CENVAT credit is fully or partially rejected,....