TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....objection, along with interest. Thereafter, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resneius Kabi Oncology Ltd. v. Commissioner [2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 330 (Tri. - Chan.)] (xv) Koeleman India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner [2021 (6) TMI 744 - CESTAT 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xample of such provisions under the CGST Act 1 Interpretation and application of the provisions of CGST Act, to the extent they modify the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994 Yes 142(3),142(4),142(5), 142(6), 142(8) 2 Other transitional provisions for transfer of CENVAT 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. Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In view of the above paragraph, it is clear that the transfer of CENVAT Credit lying as balance as input credit is purely a provision of the C.G.S.T. Act and CESTAT has no role in interpreting or applying the said provisions. We find that there is a clear divergence taken in this decision. In many decisions of this Tribunal, this Tribunal has considered 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 ....