TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecution or enforcement provision is available in the Customs Act that has created this Tribunal or in the erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994, which also have empowered this Tribunal to act as Appellate Authority against the order passed by Principal/Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) but Rule 41 has admittedly empowered this Tribunal to pass any such order or direction to give effect to the order passed by it for the ends of justice and also to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. It reads: "Rule 41. Orders and directions in certain cases - The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice." 1.1 It is required to be specifically mentioned here that similar provision under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code has empowered also the Civil Courts to exercise similar power. It would be worthwhile also to reproduce Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to justify strength in the provision contained in the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 under Rule 41 of the said Rules. Section 151 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 19.11.2024 in the following manner "miscellaneous application for addition of prayer by way of amendment is allowed since the same relates to consequential effect of the final order" and the final order of this Bench that was passed on 24.01.2025 which runs as follows: "8.10 Since no part of the order-in-original either disallowing cenvat credit or confirming the demand of service tax sustains the order for recovery of interest on the same and imposition of penalties does not sustain. 8.11 We, therefore, hold that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside. 9. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the Appellant. After the final order was passed, Appellant sought for refund of Rs. 378,50,92,185/- in cash that was transitioned as credit to Trans-1 register upon introduction of GST with effect from 01.07.2017 and subsequently reversed by the Appellant in phases and the said refund application was filed under Section 142 (6) of the CGST Act. Computation of the figures shown in the refund application has been reproduced in this miscellaneous application at para 6 & 7 and also at para 7 & 8 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustainable by this Tribunal despite the fact that Appellant had reversed credit amounting to Rs. 122,05,41,156/- on 26.09.2020, before issue of show-cause notice on the ground that those services were used for trading of goods. Respondent-Department proposed to deny the same in its show-cause notice disapproving the claim of the Appellant that it was a pre- deposit. It has proposed to refund the amount but expressly stated in its written note filed on 20.03.2025 (last but one paragraph) and in its submission dated 04.04.2025 which is received by the Registry on 07.04.2025 at page 3 last para that such amount available for refund to the Appellant to its credit ledger and not in cash, which can be re- credited to the electronic credit ledger maintained during the GST regime from the same account from where ITC (input tax credit was reversed/debited), from where Appellant may seek refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act in which event, this Tribunal can't exercise jurisdiction concerning refund under CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the issue lies before us for determination can be summarised as follows: (i) Whether consequential relief granted by the Tribunal would include the entire amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e not available in the present case. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 299.81 crores which was reversed before issue of show cause notice was not admissible to be included in the show cause notice for confirmation of demand and appropriation of the same. For the said reason the said finding and order of the original authority ordering appropriation of the amount of Rs. 299.81 crores is not sustainable. 8.5 The original authority has appropriated cenvat credit of Rs. 122.05 which was carried forward by the appellant in GST Tran-1. In respect of the said amount we note that para 8.1 of the show cause notice states that vide entry dated 26.09.2020, the said amount was reversed since the said amount was cenvat credit in respect of the services used for trading of the goods. The appellant in their reply to show cause notice in para 4.15 has stated that the said credit was pertaining to trading of goods and, therefore, they have reversed the same. The said amount was reversed on 36.09.3030 before issue of show cause notice. Therefore, as stated earlier, in view of the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, show cause notice could not have been issued in respect of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant to file the appeal. However, on this score alone Appellant's claim for refund of the said amount of Rs. 122.05 crores should not be considered as not flowing as a consequential relief from the main relief for the reason that though the Appellant has treated in para 4.15 of its reply to show- cause notice that the said credit was reversed as was pertaining to trading of goods but going by the show-cause notice at para 8.1 and observation of the Commissioner it is quite clear that Respondent- Department had 'persuaded the Appellant to reverse the same amount for the input tax credit ledger (Trans-1), which were CENVAT Credit in respect of input services received from M/s. Reliance Web Store Ltd. and M/s. Reliance Communication and were ineligible credit'. This being the fact on record, we have to highlight the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Appellant, as recorded in para 8.3 of our order, that would go to show that Appellant had asserted that they had not sold any telephone equipment whatsoever apart from sale of some scrap and neither the show-cause notice nor the impugned order have given any detail of trading by the Appellant to substantiate the claim of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 122,05,41,156/- was not payable (page 4). This aspect has to be looked into in determining consequential relief while granting refund so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation but not in the way department intended to do by issuing show-cause notice to deny consequential relief which was also expressly granted by this Tribunal in respect of amount of Rs. 256,45,51,029/- mentioned in the miscellaneous application. 4.2 Now coming to the issue No. (ii) it can be said that the issue of refund lies in a very narrow compass since Respondent-Department is willing and agreeing to recredit that amount of Rs. 256,45,51,029/- that was transitioned to electronic credit ledger and subsequently reversed but denying to refund the same in cash as proviso to Section 146 (6) (a) of the CGST Act, 2017, under which refund application was filed by the Assessee-Appellant before the Refund Sanctioning Authority, has clearly stated that "no refund shall be allowed of any amount of CENVAT Credit where the balance of the said amount as on the appointed day has been carried forward under this Act" (CGST Act). Therefore, the dispute is confined to refund of the said amount of Rs. 256.45 crores in cash or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t tenable nor under Section 142 (6) (a) of the CGST Act. 6. Joint Commissioner on behalf of Respondent Mr. Yogesh S. Chitte is right in saying that sub Section 3 & 6 (a) of Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017 deal with situation that relates to claim for refund of CENVAT Credit or claim for CENVAT Credit which were not transitioned and remained disputed but sub Clause 6(b) and Clause 7 onwards are unrelated to such claim since those were concerned with recovery proceedings including recovery of CENVAT Credit and tax dues initiated after CGST is brought into force, in which event even if CENVAT Credits were transitioned, the existing law (Finance Act or Excise Act) was to be invoked for such recovery and Appellant's case falls in that category since show-cause notice was issued in December, 2022 when transition to GST electronic ledger had already happened and not disputed by the Department. Therefore, this is a case which squarely falls under Section 142 Sub-section 7(b) since it is a proceeding initiated under Section 73 of the Finance Act for recovery of Taxes and Credit (Rule 14 recovery is also made under Section 73) but ultimately both demand of Service Tax and recovery of cred....