TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 923
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India for further broadcasting on DTH TV and other digital media exclusively in USA and Canada. The appellant believed that since the sports rights are for live broadcast in territories outside India, the place of provision of service would be outside India in terms of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 [the 2012 Service Rules] and hence the appellant would exclusively be engaged in export of such service. 3. For exporting such services, the appellant claims that it has to first import such broadcast rights in the territory of India. The appellant discharged service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism on such import of services. The appellant further claims that since the services imported by the appellant are „input services‟ in terms of rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 [the Credit Rules], it could avail CENVAT credit of service tax paid on import of such services. 4. The appellant, therefore, filed four separate refund claims of CENVAT credit for the period July 16 to June 17 after the appointed date i.e. 01.07.2017 under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 [the 2017 Act] in terms of rule 5 of the Credit Rules read with the N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to the appellant but the refund claims of the appellant were again rejected by order dated 20.09.2019 holding that the appellant had not fulfilled condition 2(h) of the Notification dated 18.06.2012. The order also notices that the appellant had not reversed credit from its Bangalore unit. 8. The appellant again filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by order dated 18.03.2020, upheld the order dated 20.09.2019 on the ground that the appellant had not debited the refund claim from its CENVAT credit account at the time of filing of refund claim, which debit was required to be done under condition 2(h) of the Notification dated 18.06.2012. The contention of the appellant that CENVAT credit reversal was done by the Bangalore unit in its GSTR 3B returns was not accepted as it was a distinct person in law and the same was required to be reversed by the Delhi unit. 9. Shri A.K. Batra, learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant assisted by Ms. Sakshi Khanna submitted: (i) The appellant had fulfilled condition 2(h) of the Notification dated 18.06.2012; (ii) As the refund claims were filed after 01.07.2017 but within time, the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rence in this appeal. Learned authorised representative pointed out that as the appellant did not fulfil condition 2(h) of the Notification dated 18.06.2012, the refund claims were rightly rejected. Learned authorised representative also placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in Apex Co. Vantage India. 11. The submissions advanced by the learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant and the learned authorised representative appearing for the department have been considered. 12. The period in dispute in this appeal is from July 2016 to June 2017. The appointed date under the 2017 Act is 01.07.2017. Immediately after filing of the last ST-3 return, the appellant claimed CENVAT credit lying in its books of account on 30.06.2017 through Trans-1 filed on 11.08.2017 in the Delhi GST registration and, thereafter, transferred the CENVAT credit to its Bangalore Unit in terms of the proviso to section 140(8) of the 2017 Act for the reason that Bangalore Unit had the same PAN and was included in the centralized registration of the appellant in the Service Tax Regime. 13. Section 140 of the 2017 Act deals with transitional arrangements for input credit. Sub-section (1) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t account at the time filing of the refund claims as per condition 2(h) of the Notification dated 18.06.2012. 16. Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant submitted that the appellant had fulfilled condition 2(h) of the Notification dated 18.06.2012. 17. It is seen that the claims for the period in dispute i.e. from July 2016 to June 2017 were filed within time after the appointed date i.e. 01.07.2017. Since the refund was not filed in the service tax regime, there was an accumulation of CENVAT credit pertaining to the period in dispute in the last ST-3 return filed for the period April-June, 2017 prior to introduction of GST regime w.e.f 01.07.2017. The appellant, therefore, claimed the whole CENVAT credit amount of Rs. 16,99,60,721/- lying in its books of account on 30.06.2017 through Tran-1 filed on 11.08.2017 in the Delhi GST registration. According to the appellant, since the refunds was filed in the GST regime after the repeal of Service Tax regime on 30.06.2017, there was no system in ACES to debit the amount of CENVAT credit at the time of filing of the refund claim in the GST regime and, therefore, it was not possible to reverse the CENVAT credit through ST-3 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....following cases namely:- 1. Inductoterm Group Pune (P) Ltd., Vs. C.S.T. (Order Nos. A/88468-88971/2017/SMB dated 3.7.2017) 2. Sandoz (P) Ltd., Vs. C.C.E (Order Nos. A/31180- 3019/2015-WZB/EB dated 13.08.2015) 3. Kopran Ltd. Vs. CCE (Order No. A/862018/2016/EB dated 26.2.2018 (Order No. A/86808/2016/EB dated 26.02.2018) 4. Kellogg and Andelson Management Service (P) Ltd. Vs. CST (Order Nos. 41697-41702/2018 dated 23.05.2018). are apt. The common takeaway from the above decisions is that with the introduction of GST there was a change in the scenario, there was also no provision in the ACES system to debit the refund amount and that subsequent reversal by the appellant in its GSTR-3B file is a sufficient compliance with condition at paragraph 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. This aspect has also been clarified by the CBIC in its Circular No. 58/32/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018." (emphasis supplied) 24. In Global Analytics India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal observed as follows: "7.1 It is an undisputed fact that the appellant did not reverse the equal amount as required by the condition at paragraph 2(h) of N....