Case Law Details
Punjab National Bank Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT find that there is no controversy regarding the quantum of amount refundable. Further, there is no allegation nor any finding by the Court below with regard to unjust enrichment. Further, in the facts and circumstances, I find that there is no scope to transfer any service tax liability as the credit has been taken after the appointed day and also filing of Form TRAN-1. I further hold that no time limit is prescribed under the transition provision of Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, for claim and grant of refund.
Accordingly, in view of my finding, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is entitled to refund of the said amount of Rs. 1,18,237/-. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to disburse the refund of the said amount within a period of (60) sixty days from the date of receipt of this order alongwith interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The appellant is a scheduled commercial bank and they were registered under the provisions of service tax and were paying service tax under various heads like Banking and Financial Services, Business Auxiliary Service etc., for the period ended on 30.06.2017. The appellant filed their return in form ST-3 on 14.08.2017. The appellant also filed their form TRAN-1 for transfer of unutilised cenvat credit to the GST regime for Rs.5,38,330/- on the same date. Thereafter, the appellant noticed some mistake of omission in taking the cenvat credit due to late receipt of some invoices of input service. Thus, the appellant took cenvat credit and filed revised return in Form ST-3 for the period ended 30.06.2017, which was filed on 21.09.2017 and the additional cenvat credit arising due to the omission was Rs.1,18,237/-.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
