TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 2017-18. On an appeal filed by the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22 (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. Bosch Electrical Drive- Appeal No. ST/40010/2020 Malik Traders - 2023 (10) TMI 947....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 2022-TIOL-57-SC-GST Special Leave to Appeal No(s).32709-32710/2018 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The appellants paid service tax, on Reverse Charge Mechanism, in October 2018 after the cut-off date for transition t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "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. Payment of tax does not confer any right or entitlement to claim refund of such tax paid unless there are provisions which allow such act. In consequence, refund in question sought by the appellants under the said provisions is not admissible to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 opinion that the provisions of law do not permit the same. It was for the appellant to pay the applicable service tax in time; to avail CENVAT credit of the same and claim refund under the provisions of Rule 5 as the appellants are engaged in export. The appel....