TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation. As they failed to fulfill the export obligations, they had paid CVD of Rs.5,33,676/-, Education Cess on CVD of 10,674/-, S&H Education Cess of Rs.5,337/- and Additional duty of Customs of Rs.2,90,043/- (total amounting to Rs.8,39,730/-). As they were eligible to claim Cenvat credit of the above duties under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but due to implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 they could not avail the said credit under GST. 2.3 The refund claim was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 15.06.2020 observing that appellant had failed to submit any evidence regarding receipt installation of the machine capital goods in the factory and the said machine was used in manufacture of finished goods as such Cenvat credit was not admissible. Reliance was placed by the Adjudicating Authority relying on the decision of Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Servo Packaging Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST Final Order No.40098 of 2020 dated 05.02.2020. 2.4 Aggrieved appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 05.04.2021 remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for a decision after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r records as follows for rejecting the refund claim made by the appellant:- "5.2 I find that the adjudicating authority in the impugned order has categorically mentioned that "he has examined the reply dated 30.05.2021 submitted by the appellant and the submissions made during personal hearing. To follow the principle of natural justice the party has been given ample opportunity by way of personal hearings to support their case by adducing new facts/evidences. However, the party, although attended the hearing but could not succeed in bringing any new facts/grounds to corroborate/fortify their case. They have reiterated the same old submissions as given earlier." Accordingly, the adjudicating authority held that no new facts available with the party otherwise they would have submitted at the time of submission of their defense and at the time of personal hearing conducted after remand of the case. 5.3 Therefore, in the light of above narrated situation, I take up the issue to decide afresh as to whether the refund of CVD of Rs. 8,39,730/- is admissible to the appellant or not? 5.4 Here it is imperative to examine the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue to non availment of cenvat credit, the said claim has been filed by the appellant. 5.7 Before discussion on the admissibility of refund, it will not be out of context to examine as to whether the appellant was entitled to take cenvat credit under the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in case the duty was paid due to failure to fulfil the conditions of EPCG License. In view of para 2(7) of the Notification No.64/2008 ibid, the imported capital goods needed to be installed in the importer's factory or premises and a certificate from the jurisdictional Deputy/Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, needed to be produced confirming installation and use of capital goods in the factory premises, within six months from the date of completion of imports. But the appellant did not produce any installation certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise officer regarding receipt and installation of the said machine in their factory. Even when they were asked to submit the warehousing/installation certificate, they could not do so. Even they could not submit original copy of EPCG license. It is also fact on record that the appellant vide their letter dated 25.11.2019 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fund of input Cenvat Credit when a manufacturer/service exports goods/services without payment of duty/tax. Admittedly, the present situation does not warrant refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as the CVD and SAD has not been claimed as Cenvat in the first instance. Therefore, claim for refund of CVD is not admissible in terms of Section 142(3) read with the erstwhile provisions also. Admittedly, the capital goods imported have not gone into the manufacture of goods meant for export hence refund under the erstwhile Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is not admissible to them. Thus, it is apparent that refund of the CVD was not admissible to them though available in erstwhile provisions; hence it is not admissible to the appellant in cash after introduction of GST. At best, the party could have availed the CENVAT Credit, but that would not ipso facto confer them any right to claim refund of such credit in cash with the onset of G.S.T. because CENVAT is an option available to an assessee to be exercised and the same cannot be enforced. 5.10 I further find that it is the appellant who has unequivocally and unconditionally undertaken to pay the duty amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in terms of a scheme to the time of making the payment of the above amounts, he claims that he could not avail this credit as per the constant scheme. This amount should be refunded to him as he has relied upon the decision of the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s ITCO Industries Ltd. 2023 (70) GSTL 76 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein following has been held:- "7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the payment of CVD and SAD subsequently during GST regime, for the imports made prior to 30-6-2017 is not disputed under the advance authorisation scheme. It is also not disputed that the appellant have paid the CVD and SAD in August, 2018 by way of regularisation on being so pointed out by the Revenue Authority. Further, I find that the Court below have erred in observing in the impugned order, that without producing proper records of duty paid invoices etc. in manufacture of dutiable final product, refund cannot be given. I further find that refund of CVD and SAD in question is allowable, as credit is no longer available under the GST regime, which was however available under the erstwhile regime of Central Excise prior to 30-6-2017. Accordingly, I hol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, the refund was rejected. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai, who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 326/2019 (CTA-I), dated 17-10-2019 upheld the rejection. Consequently, the present appeal is filed before this forum. 4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri V. Ravindran, Ld. Advocate, appeared for the assessee-appellant and Ms. Sridevi Taritla, Ld. Joint Commissioner (Authorized Representative), appeared for the Revenue-respondent. 5. Ld. Advocate for the appellant reiterated the grounds and contentions urged before the lower authorities. He also submitted that when the import was made and the applicable duty was paid, the same would tantamount to a normal import and hence, the Cenvat credit would remain available. He also relied on the following decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal : (i) T2S Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of G.S.T. & Central Excise [2019 (7) T.M.I. 1299 - CESTAT, Chennai]; (ii) Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Panchkula [2019 (7) T.M.I. 1242 - CESTAT, Chandigarh = 2019 (26) G.S.T.L. 196 (Tri.-Chan.)]; (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ject to the conditions laid down thereunder. One of the conditions, as per clause (iv), is that it requires execution of a bond in case of non-compliance with the conditions specified in that Notification. Further, paragraph 2.35 of the FTP also requires execution of Legal Undertaking (LUT)/Bank Guarantee (BG) : (a) Wherever any duty free import is allowed or where otherwise specifically stated, importer shall execute, Legal Undertaking (LUT)/Bank Guarantee (BG)/Bond with the Customs Authority, as prescribed, before clearance of goods. 9.2 Further, there is no dispute that the above is guided by the Handbook of Procedures ('HBP' for short) and paragraph 4.50 of the HBP prescribes the payment of Customs Duty and interest in case of bona fide default in Export Obligation (EO), as under : "(a) Customs duty with interest as notified by DoR to be recovered from Authorisation holder on account of regularisation or enforcement of BG/LUT, shall be deposited by Authorisation holder in relevant Head of Account of Customs Revenue i.e., "Major Head 0037 - Customs and minor head 001-Import Duties" in prescribed T.R. Challan within 30 days of demand raised by Regional/Customs A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....khand High Court in the case of M/s Rungta Mines Ltd. 2022 (67) GSTL 180 (Jharkhand) wherein following has been held:- "Legal proposition on the point of interpretation of transitional provisions, vested rights etc. with reference to the judgments relied upon by the Learned Counsel of the petitioner. 10. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment passed in the case of Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedam De Gama (supra) on the point that the transitional provisions are to be purposefully construed and the paramount object in statutory interpretation is to discover what the Legislature intended and this intention is primarily to be ascertained from the text of the enactment in question. This principle of statutory interpretation is well settled. 11. So far as the case of K.S. Paripoornan (supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the role of "Transitional Provision" and the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Para-71 of the said judgment, which is quoted as under :- Section 30 of the amending Act bears the "71. heading "Transitional provisions". Explaining the rol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... cases of conflict between a specific provision and a general provision the specific provision prevails over the general provision and the general provision applies only to such cases which are not covered by the specific provision, we must hold that Cl. 5(a) has no application in a case where the special provisions of Cl. 23 are applicable." The aforesaid judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner in view of the fact that there is no conflict amongst the various provisions of CGST Act referred to by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument, particularly with reference to Sections 140, 142 and 174 of the CGST Act. The provisions have been interpreted in later portion of this judgment. 14. The Learned Counsel has further referred to the judgment in the case of CIT v. J.H. Gotla reported in (1985) 4 SCC 343 to submit that even in taxation, if strict literal construction leads to absurdity, construction which results in equity rather than injustice, should be preferred. However, during the course of argument, the Learned Counsel has failed to demonstrate as to how any of the provisions of CGST Act which have been referred to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... existing right is saved thereby. The existing right of a party has to be determined on the basis of the statute which was applicable and not under the new one. If a new Act confers a right, it does so with prospective effect when it comes into force, unless expressly stated otherwise." 17. In the case of Glaxo Smith Kline PLC and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the view of the learned single judge of the High Court and held at Para 17 as under :- The Learned Single Judge's view that the "17. provisions of Section 78 of the Amendment Act have no application to the proceedings which stood concluded before the appointed day appears to be the correct view governing the issue. Since Chapter IV-A in question was merely repealed, the situation has to be dealt with in line with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The provisions of Section 78 are conditional provisions and are not intended to cover cases where the application for EMR had been rejected with reference to Section 21 of the amending enactment. As noted above, Chapter IV-A was repealed. The effect of the repeal has to be ascertained in the background of Section 6 of the General Clau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the earlier Scheme necessarily that the taxes have to be adjusted and payment made complete. Any manner or mode of application of the said Rule would result in affecting the rights of the assessees. We may look at the matter from another 6. angle. If on the inputs, the assessee had already paid the taxes on the basis that when the goods are utilised in the manufacture of further products as inputs thereto then the tax on these goods gets adjusted which are finished subsequently. Thus, a right accrued to the assessee on the date when they paid the tax on the raw materials or the inputs and that right would continue until the facility available thereto gets worked out or until those goods existed. Therefore, it becomes clear that Section 37 of the Act does not enable the authorities concerned to make a rule which is impugned herein and, therefore, we may have no hesitation to hold that the Rule cannot be applied to the goods manufactured prior to 16-3-1995 on which duty had been paid and credit facility thereto has been availed of for the purpose of manufacture of further goods." 19. The Learned Counsel has also referred to the judgment passed in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t case, the petitioner failed to claim transitional credit in terms of Section 140(1) of the CGST Act and wrongly took credit of the impugned service tax in ST-3 return and thereafter claimed refund of the same by referring to Section 142(3) of CGST Act. Accordingly, the said judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. The sequence of facts; case of the parties and the contents of the impugned orders 24. The petitioner was having Central Excise Registration for manufacture of sponge iron, billet and TMT Bar. The petitioner was also registered under Service tax only as a person liable to pay service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Admittedly, the "port services" involved in this case is not covered under Reverse Charge Mechanism and therefore the same was not includable in the service tax return filed by the petitioner under ST-3. Accordingly, the petitioner was not entitled to avail credit of the impugned service tax paid on the "port services" in its service tax ST-3 return. 25. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was entitled to claim Cenvat credit on the service tax paid on "port services" if used in the manu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....letely lost and could not be claimed in TRAN-1 as transitional credit under CGST Act. Admittedly, the petitioner was not entitled to claim the service tax paid on "port services" in their service tax return ST-3 as the petitioner was not an output service provider and was liable to file service tax return and pay service tax only under reverse charge mechanism. Admittedly, "port services" were not under reverse charge mechanism. 29. Further, Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits refund only when the services are used to export goods or services, which is not the case in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned services were used for export of goods or services. Thus, under the existing law the claim of refund of service tax paid by the petitioner on port services was not admissible. 30. The case of the petitioner is that since they received the original copy of the Bill dated 23-5-2017 as late as on 20-9-2017, they could not take Cenvat credit in their last ER-1 return for June, 2017 filed on 30-7-2017. However, the petitioner took the credit of Rs. 10,88,328/- in their ST-3 return for April-June, 2017 filed on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same in ER-1 returns which was already filed before receipt of the duty paying document. The substantive benefit of Cenvat credit should not be denied for technical breaches and that the legislation for granting input tax credit is beneficial piece of legislation and should be construed liberally; (ii) The said services are used for procurement of inputs are amply covered in the definition of "input service" in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 and disclosure or non-disclosure of said credit in ST-3 and/or ER-1 are irrelevant. (iii) Ultimate eligibility of the credit of the impugned services is not in dispute and the benefit of Cenvat credit eventually accrues to them which is the heart and soul of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 and under Section 142(3) there is no statutory precondition that in order to claim the transitional credit, the claim must be disclosed in the ER-1 return; (iv) Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for refund of Cenvat credit in cash accruing to the assessee under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Section 142 is a residuary provision which deals with cases/contingencies which are not specifically covered or contemplated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal reiterating the submissions made before the Adjudicating Authority. They made following main submissions before the appellate authority : (i) The services were received by them during 26-4-2017 to 29-4-2017 and payment, including service tax, was made in April, 2017. But they received the invoice on 20-9-2017 and they made provisional entry in their books of account. They could not take credit in their last ER-1 return for June, 2017 which they filed on 30-7-2017 for the reason beyond their control. They could not have filed any return thereafter when Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder was repealed; (ii) They could not avail the benefit of Section 140(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the same reason that the original copy of the invoice was received in September, 2017. They were left with no option than to file refund Application vide their letter dated 29-6-2018 under residuary provision of Section 142(3) read with Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and Section 11B(2)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (iii) There is no requirement under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act of disclosure of the Cenvat credit in the ER-1 return like ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... utilised by the manufacturer or provider of output service towards payment of duty of excise on any final product cleared for home consumption or for export, on payment of duty or service tax on output service. When for any reason, such adjustment is not possible, the manufacturer shall be allowed refund of such amount subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitation as may be specified by the Central Government by a notification. (f) The appellate authority referred to a judgment passed by the North Zonal Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Purvi Fabrics & Texturise (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 321 (Tri. - Del.), wherein it was held that there is no legal provision existing for refund either by cash or cheque. The only exception carved out is that the refund in cash is granted as an incentive measure to the exporter. The provisions and particularly Section 11B of the Central Excise Act provides for payment of amount of refund to the applicant only in situations specified in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellate authority held that the petitioner has attempted to claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the case may be, or used in the intermediate products cleared for export. Therefore, in the scheme of the rules, what is sought by the petitioner is not permissible. Thus, the attempt by the petitioner to claim refund of Cenvat credit was held to be not allowable and the appeal was rejected. Interpretation of Section 142(3) read with Section 140(1), 140(5) and Section 174 of CGST Act vis-a vis the facts of this case. 39. The relevant portions of the aforesaid sections as relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments are as under : Section 140(1) and (5) of the CGST Act reads as under :- A registered person, other than a person 140(1) opting to pay tax under section 10, shall be entitled to take, in his electronic credit ledger, the amount of CENVAT Credit of eligible duties carried forward in the return relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day, furnished by him under the existing law within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed : PROVIDED that the registered person shall not be allowed to take credit in the following circumstances, namely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as otherwise provided in this Act, Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 shall be omitted. Repeal and saving. - 174. Save as otherwise provided in this Act, on and (1) from the date of commencement of this Act, the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (except as respects goods included in entry 84 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution), the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (16 of 1955), the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957), the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978), and the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) (hereafter referred to as the repealed Acts) are hereby repealed. The repeal of the said Acts and the amendment of the Finance Act, (2) 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereafter referred to as "such amendment" or "amended Act", as the case may be) to the extent mentioned in the sub-section (1) or section 173 shall not - (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time of such amendment or repeal; or (b) affect the previous operation of the amended Act or repealed Acts and orders or anything duly done....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d date and pending on the appointed date apart from the refund applications filed on or after the appointed date. (b) Further the refund application should be for refund of any amount of Cenvat credit, duty, tax, interest or any other amount paid under the existing law. (c) Such application filed before, on or after the appointed day is to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law. (d) If any amount eventually accrues the same is to be refunded in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (e) It also provides that where any claim for refund of Cenvat credit is fully or even partially rejected, the amount so rejected shall lapse. (f) The second proviso provides 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 the CGST Act. 41. Thus, Section 142(3) of CGST Act clearly provides that refund application with respect of any amount relating to Cenvat credit, dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner while passing the impugned orders whose details have already been stated above. 44. Under the provisions of Section 11B the right to claim refund was conferred not only to the assessee but also to such classes of applicants as notified by the Central Government and also covers situations arising out of judgments of Courts and Tribunals. On the appointed date there could be claims of refund of any amount of Cenvat credit, duty, tax, interest or any other amount paid under the existing law in connection with which the applications for refunds were pending or time limit for claiming refund was yet to expire or may crystalize on account of any judgment of Courts or Tribunals in relation to pending litigations. These are some of the situations which would be covered by the miscellaneous transitional provisions as contained in Section 142(3) of CGST Act which would continue to be governed by Section 11B(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 45. The provision of Section 142(3) does not entitle a person to seek refund who has no such right under the existing law or where the right under the existing law has extinguished or where right under the new CGST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the instant case, admittedly the services in the nature of "port services" were received by the petitioner in the month of April, 2017 and invoice was also generated in the month of May, 2017. 49. In the peculiar facts of this case, the petitioner did not claim transitional credit but claimed the impugned amount of service tax on "port services" as credit in their ST-3 return which they were admittedly not entitled as they were assessee under service tax only on reverse charge mechanism and admittedly the "port services" availed by the petitioner was not covered under reverse charge mechanism. Thus, the petitioner on the one hand illegally took credit of service tax on "port services" as credit in their ST-3 return and on the other hand filed application for refund of the same amount under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act which is certainly not permissible in law. The authorities have rightly considered these aspects of the matter also while rejecting the application for refund filed by the petitioner. 50. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has claimed the credit of service tax involved in the present case paid on "port services" as "input service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service i.e. "port services" and should have claimed the credit in their ER-1 Return within the prescribed time and accordingly could have claimed transitional credit through TRAN-1 under Section 140 of CGST Act. Thus, late receipt of the original invoice which has been cited as the reason for failure to claim Cenvat credit under the existing law and transitional credit under Section 140(1) of the CGST Act was wholly attributable to acts and omissions of the petitioner and its service provider of the "port services" and the respondent authorities had no role to play. The petitioner had failed to avail the opportunity to claim Cenvat credit of service tax on port services in terms of the existing law read with Section 140 of CGST Act and had no existing right of refund on the date of coming into force of CGST Act. The petitioner having not used the port services for export was not entitled to claim refund under the existing law. The petitioner was also not entitled to refund on account of the fact that the petitioner had already taken credit of the service tax paid on port services in ST-3 Return of service tax although admittedly the petitioner was not entitled to take such c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the one hand did not claim Cenvat credit as per the procedure established by law under the existing law and on the other hand violated the provisions of law while filing his service tax returns and claimed the amount as input service and thereafter filed his petition for refund on 28-6-2018 referring to Section 142(3) of the CGST Act. The petitioner never had a right to claim refund under the existing law and had failed to exercise their right to claim Cenvat credit as per law and wrongly claimed the impugned amount as credit in Service Tax Return (S.T. 3 return). 55. In view of the aforesaid findings, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings and reasons assigned by the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority rejecting the application for refund filed by the petitioner under Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with Sections 142(3) and 174 of CGST Act. The impugned orders are well reasoned orders calling for no interference. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed." 4.6 This decision was relied upon by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s C.A.D. Vision Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 2024 (19) Centax 289 (Tri.-Hyd) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but it saves the existing right which existed on the appointed day and provides the modalities for refund in cash if found entitled under the existing law as the entire claim is mandated to be dealt with as per the existing law. It neither revive any right which stood extinguished in terms of the existing law nor does it create a new right by virtue of coming into force of CGST, Act. 46. Section 174 of the CGST Act read with section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves the right acquired, accrued or vested under the existing law and does not create any new right which never existed on the appointed day i.e on 1-7-2017 under the existing law. 47. The argument of the petitioner by referring to second proviso to section 142(3) of CGST Act that it indicates that section 142(3) would apply to the situations where the assessee has failed to take transitional credit under section 140(1), is also devoid of any merits. The second proviso only indicates that if the assessee has taken transitional credit he will not be entitled to refund. Certainly, an assessee cannot simultaneously claim transitional credit as well as refund of the same amount. The second proviso to sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in terms of the conditions of the bond executed by him for claiming the benefit of EPCG Scheme. The deposit of custom duty has been made against the capital goods which were never installed in the factory of appellant and installation certificate produced. The misdemeanor committed by the appellant cannot be a ground for claiming this amount as refund by taking shelter of the fact that GST has been introduced w.e.f. 01.01.2017. Appellant has in my view no case for claiming the refund of various duties paid, either on merit or on equity. The appellant do not have clean hands to make this claim even on the ground of equity. 4.9 It is settled law that no one should be allowed to claim benefit of his own wrongs. In the case of Municipal Committee Katra [Order dated 09.05.2024 in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 14970-71 OF 2017] Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "18. The situation at hand is squarely covered by the latin maxim 'nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria', which means that no man can take advantage of his own wrong. This principle was applied by this Court in the case of Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav [(1996) 4 SCC 127] observing as b....