M\/s. International Engineering Agencies Versus The Commissioner of GST & CE (Chennai North Commissionerate)
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 685 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 30-1-2019
Appeal No. ST\/42428\/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 40276\/2019
Service Tax
Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
\nShri P. Ravindran, Advocate, for the Appellant
\nShri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nThe appellants, engaged in the business of consultancy, commission agencies and other such related activities, filed a refund claim of service tax for the period April, 2016 to September, 2016, on 25.07.2017. On verification of the refund claim, it came to the notice of the department that the appellants are not eligible for the refund claim since, according to the Asst. Commissioner, as per Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, a refund of unutilized cenvat credit could be allowed only when the cenvat credit was related <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Vs. Slovak India Trading Co. (P) Ltd. – 2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar.) to the effect that in the light of closure of the company, sanction of refund was fully justified since the assessee came out of the modvat scheme. It is also submitted that the above decision of the Hon'ble High Court was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. On adjudication, the Asst. Commissioner, however, rejected the refund claim by relying on a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Strips Vs. CCE, Ludhiana -2012 (26) STR 27 (Tri.LB), to hold that granting of cash refund would be against the principles of Cenvat Scheme and CCR, with a particular reference to Rule 5 of CCR, which provided only for refund in the case of excess credit remaining surplus on the only solitary account of export and not in any case of balance of cenvat credit lying unutilized and unusable consequent to closure of business. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Hence, this <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n \n3. Delta Power Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pondy2017 (3) TMI 849 – Cestat, Chennai = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ule (2) deals with a situation where duty drawback is allowed and further lays down that in such a situation, credit could not be refunded. Therefore, it is clear from the above that Rule 5 facilitates the refund of Cenvat credit not merely of the excisable goods exported and therefore to say that Rule 5 provides for refund of un-utilized Cenvat only in the cases of export of service is incorrect. Thus, I am of the view that accepting this interpretation of the Commissioner (Appeals) would lead to serious anomaly, which cannot be the intention of the legislation. Admittedly, the appellant has a huge credit which is now lying with the Revenue; the appellant has surrendered its Service Tax Registration and they have also paid the service tax liability as on the last date of their business. The law cannot, therefore, lead to a situation where a bonafide tax payer's amount could be denied and withheld, for no fault of his. Further, in such a situation a bonafide assessee cannot be left rem<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. International Engineering Agencies Versus The Commissioner of GST & CE (Chennai North Commissionerate)Service Tax2019 (2) TMI 685 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 30-1-2019Appeal No. ST\/42428\/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 40276\/2019Service TaxShri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri P. Ravindran, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER … Continue reading “M\/s. International Engineering Agencies Versus The Commissioner of GST & CE (Chennai North Commissionerate)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16729","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16729","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16729"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16729\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Computer Graphics Ltd. Vs. CCE, Tirunelveli2016 (8) TMI – Cestat Chennai
\n5. Welcure Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE,Jaipur2018 (15) GSTL 257 (Raj.)
\n3. Per contra, Ld. DR, Shri L. Nandakumar, AC, supported the findings of the lower authorities.
\n4.1 I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the number of case laws relied on during the hearing. Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) reads as under:-
\n“”Rule 5. Refund of CENVAT Credit. – Where any inputs are used in the final products which are cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking, as the case may be, or used in the intermediate products cleared for export, the CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs so used shall be allowed to be utilized by the manufacturer towards payment of duty of excise on any final products cleared for home consumption or for export on payment of duty and where for any reason<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n