TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant, by the Original Refund Sanctioning Authority. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether in the facts of the case, appellants were entitled for refund under Section 142(3) and (6) of CGST Act 2017 or otherwise. The Original Refund Sanctioning Authority has rejected the claim on two grounds namely non-acceptance of the documents submitted by them for the claim as not sufficient as also on the ground that Section 142(3) does not provide for grant of cash refund in the given facts of the case as claim has to be examined under the existing law and said refunds would not have been admissible under the existing law. 3. Commissioner (Appeals) has also gone through the same provisions and has come to the conclusion that refu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 174. Learned Advocate has also relied on the judgment of this Bench in the case of M/s Jagannath Polymers Pvt Ltd., in appeal no. ST/51182/2020 Final Order dated 15.12.2021 and M/s NCL Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad GST in Service Tax Appeal No. 30033 of 2022 Final Order No. A/30048/2024 dated 18.01.2024. 5. On the other hand, Learned AR has, apart from reiterating the grounds taken by the Original Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals), submits that the issue is no longer res-integra and the matter has already been considered by various Benches including this Bench and it has been held that Section 142(3) is not a separate provision for grant of cash refund and the claim has to be examined only in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gible and admissible under the existing law would be the determining factor. I have gone through the judgments cited by the Learned AR and specially the case of M/s NACL Industries Ltd., cited supra, which has dealt with the same issue and held that refund was not permissible in certain situation where it was otherwise not eligible under existing law. This order has relied on the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of M/s Rungta Mines Ltd., and various Tribunal's judgment including the case of M/s Servo Packaging Ltd., Vs Commr of GST & CE, Puducherry [2020 (373) ELT 550 (Tri-Chennai)]. Para 12 & 13 of the order of M/s NACL Industries Ltd., Vs CCT, Visakhapatnam (supra) is reproduced below for ready reference: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uts despite failure to meet with the export obligation may not hold good here since, firstly, it was a conditional import and secondly, such import was to be exclusively used as per FTP. Moreover, such imported inputs cannot be used anywhere else but for export and hence, claiming input credit upon failure would defeat the very purpose/mandate of the Advance Licence. Hence, claim as to the benefit of CENVAT just as a normal import which is suffering duty is also unavailable for the very same reasons, also since the rules/procedures/conditions governing normal import compared to the one under Advance Authorization may vary because of the nature of import. 11. The import which would have normally suffered duty having escaped due to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot find any infirmity in the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. On the other hand, the case laws relied by the Learned Advocate passed by Co-ordinate Benches allowing the refund keeping in view the inability of the appellant in taking either the Cenvat Credit as such or getting cash refund, I find that the Tribunals have mainly held that in the given fact of the case, the appellants were entitled to claim refund under Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017. In the case of M/s NCL Industries Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad - GST Final Order No. A/30048/2024 dated 18.01.2024, the Bench relied on certain judgments of Hyderabad and Chennai Benches which had granted the refund. The Bench also took into account the Larger Bench ....