Case Law Details
Circor Flow Technologies India Private Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, (CESTAT Chennai)
Section 142 (3) of GST Act provides how to deal with claims of refund of service tax of tax and duty / credit under the erstwhile It is stated that therein that such claims have to be disposed in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing has to be paid in cash.
In the present case, there is no allegation that the credit is not eligible to the appellant. It is merely stated that tax has been paid voluntarily and therefore credit is not available under the GST Though credit is not available as Input Tax Credit under GST law, the credit under the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules is eligible to the appellant. Such credit has to be processed under Section 142 (3) of GST Act, 2017 and refunded in cash to the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CESTAT, CHENNAI
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of valves and were holding registration under Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerates during the pre-GST regime. They entered into transactions during January 2017 to June 2017 involving import of software for which service tax was liable to be paid under reverse charge mechanism. They paid the service tax belatedly in March 2019. The said tax was for the services received by them from the foreign service provider for the period January 2017 to June 2017 and the tax was paid under reverse charge mechanism. In terms of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 as it stood during the relevant period, the appellants were eligible to avail credit of the service tax paid by them. After introduction of GST with effect from 1.7.2017, as appellants could not avail cenvat credit, they filed an application for refund of the amount of which they are eligible for credit. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority stating that the tax has been voluntarily paid and that no credit is eligible in the GST regime. On appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), the said view was upheld. Hence the appellants are now before the Tribunal.
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
