TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly on 12th September 2018, well after due date stipulated in Service Tax Rules, 1994, along with interest thereon, and the lapse of the taxing statute. The original authority discarded the claim on the ground that section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, pertaining to tax collected without authority of law, did not envisage monetization of credit - eligible but not taken - even under the transitional provisions of section 142 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and further held that, even as a consequence of exigibility to tax having been declared by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat to be ultra vires in SAL Steel Ltd v. Union of India [2019 SCC Online Guj 3706], there could be no recourse either as they had not been a petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rstwhile scheme or transfer to the new scheme which, but for the payment having been made after lapsing of the law, has now compelled them to discharge liability under the new law in excess of the actual. It was also contended that the delay in payment of tax is attributable to doubts on taxability itself that attained clarity only by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat owing to which belated discharge of liability should not be held against them. He submitted that the lower authorities should, under section 142 of Central Goods & Service Tax, 2017 also administered by them, have considered the entitlement to refund. 4. It was further submitted that the maintainability of appeal against disinclination to act under the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
........ and any amount eventually accruing ........ shall be paid in cash ......". It is very widely worded in as much as it uses the expression "CENVAT credit" and also "any other amount paid". Even if, we take it that petitioner has made voluntary deposit, that amount has to be shown as CENVAT credit in the account of petitioner. In the alternative, it would certainly come under the category "or any other amount paid". Therefore, either way the amount paid by petitioner, admittedly, has to be refunded. In fact, it is also admitted that an amount of Rs. 10,48,11,737/- is refundable to petitioner. The credit of refund is the only issue because Mr. Adik, as an officer of this court and in fairness, agreed that Government cannot retain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts and circumstances in which the tax liability came to be discharged, the appellant could not have taken the credit which alone could have set the transitional provision in motion. Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 was never envisaged to handle monetization of credit even if legally entitled elsewhere which, in the present facts, is questionable too. The lower authorities were, therefore, not incorrect in holding that there is no provision in law for monetization of CENVAT credit in any form except in circumstances of export under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 enables restitution of amount paid as duty/tax in excess of that authorized by law. The appellant herein was obliged, at t....