TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nit was conducted during June to October 2017,the appellants had paid an amount of service tax of Rs.13,71,280/- on Reverse Charge Mechanism in October 2018 before issuance of show-cause notice and have applied for refund of the same claiming refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Assistant Commissioner vide OIO dated 31.07.2019 rejected the refund holding that the appellants paid service tax under the provisions of Section 68 (2) of Finance Act, 1994 and as per Section 11B, there is no provision of refund of tax which was due to the government and that in terms of Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) only one claim is to be filed for every quarter and that the appellants have already availed refund claim in respect of 2016-17 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i. Chennai) Circor Flow Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. - 2022 (59) GSTL 63 (Tri. Chennai) NSSL Pvt. Ltd. - Order No.86639-86640/2021 (Tri. Mumbai) Banswara Syntex Ltd. - 2019 (365) ELT 773. 3. Shri Pawan Kumar, learned Authorized Representative for the Department, explains the provisions of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 and submits that the Section clearly indicates that every refund claim has to be disposed of under the provisions of existing law only; Section 142(3) does not independently provide appellant a right to claim refund of any unutilized CENVAT credit without fulfillment of conditions prescribed under existing law. He relies on the following cases: Banswarra Syntex - 2018 (91) TMI 1064. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I 1060 CESTAT HYDERABAD] I.O. No. 40019/2021 D.O.D.-22,10.2021 M/s Bosch Electrical Drive India Pvt Ltd., Vs CCE - Chennai-GST F.O. No. 30689/2020 D.O.D.-25.02.2020-M/s Mylan Laboratories Ltd., Vs. CCE Secunderabad-GST 2014 (10) TMI 667-CESTAT, Mumbai Phoenix Industries Pvt. Ltd.; Vs. CCE, Raigad 2019 (9) TMI 16-CESTAT, Mumbai Idol Textile Ltd, Balaji Prints Ltd.; Vs. Commr. of Central Excise 2019 (30) GSTL 224 (Bom.) Gauri Plasticulture P. Ltd.; Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Indore 2020 (10) TMI 804-Madras High Court-Asst. Commr of CGST and Central Excise and Customs, SutherLand Global Service Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (10) TMI 1064-Rajasthan High Court Banswara Syntex Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the Finance Act 1994 or Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 relevant for claiming refund. Further, there are no notifications, order, rule or regulation made prior to 01.07.2017 which allows such refund. In short there is no provision under the "existing law" which allows such payment of refund in a situation as the present one. It is clear that the appellants have misconstrued the provisions of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017. In the facts and circumstances of the case, inability of the appellants to transit the tax paid into ITC is of no relevance. It needs to be kept in mind that payment of tax under provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and availment of credit of such tax paid under the provisions of CCR 2004 are two different aspects.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can only be availed subject to observance of the procedure laid down under Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012; only one claim for refund can be lodged for one quarter and that the appellants have already availed refund of unutilized CENVAT credit for the quarter ending up to June 2017. 7. From the records of the case, it is seen that the case does not fall under the category of refund under Rule 5, as a refund claim for the relevant quarter has already been filed and availed by the appellant, the fact of which is not denied by them. I find that the appellant is attempting to compress various provisions relating to refund under Central Excise Act, 1944; CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and CGST Act 2017. I am of the considered opini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as a law laid down under article 141 of the Constitution or otherwise. This issue was examined by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay which also examined whether unutilized cenvat credit can be refunded on account of the closure of manufacture activities of the factory. The Hon'ble Larger Bench has found that the law has not been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the SLP was merely dismissed on account of the concession made by the ASG. Further, the Larger Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held that no refund can be sanctioned under Section 11B if the assessee is unable to utilize Cenvat credit on account of closure of the manufacturing activities. 11. In view of the above, we find t....