TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1061
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is engaged in the activity of manufacture and sale. 1. The Appellant, M/s Ipsen Technologies Private Limited is engaged in the activity of manufacture and sale of furnaces, tailor-made designs and manufacturing of heat treatment furnace, and is also engaged in election, commissioning and installation of such furnaces. The Appellant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ipsen Germany. 2. Ipsen Malaysia was holding the distribution and agency rights in South East Asia and during FY 2016-17 Ipsen India for having better position in the market intended to procure the said distribution and agency rights for a period of 10 years from Ipsen Malaysia. For such transfer of rights Ipsen India entered into a License agreement dated 01st February, 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h 2018 filed in the prescribed form R. (page 50-53 of the appeal memorandum) Through the said refund application, the appellant prayed for refund of Rs. 1,52, 84,740/- (Service Tax of Rs. 1,47, 57,680/- & Krishi Kalyan Cess of Rs. 5, 27,060/-). 7. Such refund application of the Appellant stands rejected as on date. Initially a SCN was issued seeking as to why the refund should not be denied for alleged violation of Rule 7 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, read with Rule 7B of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and alleged misinterpretation of the instructions in Board Circular No. 207/5/2017-Service Tax dated 28 September 2017, read with Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act 2017. The Appellant duly replied to such SCN. However, vide the Order in O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Heard the parties. 6. We find that the issue involved in this matter has been examined by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Circor Flow Technologies India Private Ltd Vs The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore [2022-VIL-15-CESTAT-CHE-ST); 2021 SCC Online CESTAT 4175], wherein this Tribunal examined this issue and observed as under: - 9. From the facts narrated above, it is brought out that appellant has paid the service tax voluntarily under selfassessment. The tax is paid under reverse charge mechanism for the services received by them from Foreign Service provider. On perusal of para 6.4 of the 010, it is seen that the adjudicating authority has denied refund of credit holding that the service tax has been paid vo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et lapsed. 11. Section 142(3) of GST Act provides how to deal with claims of refund of service tax of tax and duty/credit under the erstwhile law. It is stated that therein that such claims have to be disposed in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing has to be paid in cash. 12. In the present case, there is no allegation that the credit is not eligible to the appellant. It is merely stated that tax has been pald voluntarily and therefore credit is not available under the GST regime. Though credit is not available as Input Tax Credit under GST law, the credit under the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules is eligible to the appellant. Such credit has to be processed under Section 142(3) of GST Act, 201....