TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to cancellation of various of the above said demand notes, corresponding credit notes were issued by the appellant. The appellant had earlier paid service tax on the entire booking amount collected and on forfeiture also had paid GST on the forfeited amount. Accordingly, appellants filed refund claim on 22.10.2021 claiming refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 18,97,970/-. However, vide Show Cause Notice No. 05 dated 04.04.2022 while observing following deficiencies the claim was proposed to be rejected. a) The assessee has not submitted the said refund claim within one year as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of claim mention above. b) The assessee has claimed Refund of Rs. 18,97,970/- paid to the Government through GAR 7 challans/debiting Cenvat credit ledger, but no details as to how much has been paid through GAR-7, the dates when they have been paid and how much amount has been paid through Cenvat credit ledger with dates been provided. c) No party wise reconciliation statement with demand note number and date, amount demanded, amount realised, corresponding credit note number and date, amount refunded etc has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi dated 31.10.2023 bearing Final Order No. 51564/2023- CESTAT NEW DELHI. 2. M/s. Jai Mateshwaari Steels Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner, CGST Dehradun, dated 11.02.2022 cited as 2022 (3) TMI 49 - CESTAT NEW DELHI 3. M/s. Doowon Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd. versus. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai dated 19.05.2022 cited as 2022 (5) TMI 984- CESTAT CHENNΑΙ 4. Punjab National Bank versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North dated 07.07.2021 cited as 2021 (7) TMI 326 CESTAT BANGALORE 5. M/s. Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai dated 22.06.2022 cited as 2022 (6) TMI 1134-CESTAT CHENNΑΙ. 6. Rattan India Power Ltd. Vs CCE & CGST, Delhi dated 05.04.2022 cited as 2022 (65) GSTL 122 (Tri. - Del.) 7. Raj Construction Vs. CCE & CGST, Jaipur dated 07.06.2022 cited as 2022 (66) GSTL 450 (Tri. Del.) 8. M/s. Credence Property vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Tax dated 05.01.2023 cited as 2023(1) TMI 252-CESTAT Mumbai. 5. While rebutting these submissions, ld. Departmental Representative has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Those findings have fully been endorsed and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order under challenge. In the light of these observations, the narrow point of adjudication for the present appeal is: "Whether the refund claim in the given set of circumstances where it has been filed after introduction of CGST Act gets hit by principle of limitation." For the purpose, the relevant provision of the CGST Act section 142 (5) is foremost perused under which the impugned claim has been filed. It reads as follows:- (5) Every claim filed by a person after the appointed day for refund of tax paid under the existing law in respect of services not provided shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid 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. (1 of 1944). 9. The bare perusal makes it clear that under Section 142(5) of CGST Act, 2017 the refund claim of service tax paid under the existing law (Central Excise Act, 1944) in resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng balance of Cenvat credit increases as compare to closing balance of Cenvat credit in original return; (c) In this case the registered person is required to file refund for the differential amount; (d) The differential amount shall be refunded to registered person in cash as per provisions of existing law (e) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the said law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5.2 Further, I find that the words "notwithstanding anything contrary contain in said law" means that the provisions of this Section will prevail over provisions of existing law except provision of Section 11B(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Section 11B(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 contains provisions relating to granting of refund in case of unjust enrichment. Thus, as far as conditions of Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act, 2017 is concerned, the appellant has fulfilled the said conditions and hence is entitled for refund. As far as new ground taken by the Learned Commissioner that the appellant has filed the revised return late is not valid because this ground has not been raised either ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of India, the authority cannot retain the said amount. I draw my support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Jalandhar - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.) = 1988 Supp. SCC 683; Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India - [1994] Supp. (3) SCC 86 Rule 11 before and after amendment or Section 11B of CEA cannot affect Section 72 of the Contract Act or the provisions of Limitation Act in such situations. Hon'ble Court held as follows:- "Where the levy is unconstitutional - outside the category (I) provisions of the Act or not contemplated by the Act - In such cases, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not barred. The aggrieved party can invoke Section 72 of the Contract Act, file a suit or a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and pray for appropriate relief inclusive of refund within the period of limitation provided by the appropriate law. - Dulabhai's Case (supra) - para 32 - clauses (3) and (4)." 9. The said decision has been followed in the case of Natraj and Venkat Associates v. Asstt. Commissioner reported as 2010 (17) S.T.R. 3 (Mad.). In this ca....