Case Law Details
Nitin Industries (Trade Name) Vs Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT find that admittedly, Save and Except taking forward of the credit balance as on 30.06.2017, the appellant have not commenced production or manufacturing activities nor cleared any taxable goods on or after 1.7.2017. Further, debit by the appellant in the electronic ledger (DRC-3) amounts to reversal of credit transferred to GST regime. Further, I find that the appellant is entitled to refund under the provisions of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, which provides that assessee can file refund claim on or after the appointed day, for refund of any amount of credit of duty, etc. paid under the existing law (Central Excise/Service Tax), subject to clearing the bar of unjust enrichment. Further, the bar of limitation has been waived under Section 142 (3). I further find that in the facts of the present case, the appellant is entitled to refund in terms of Section 142(3) read with Section 54 read with Section 49(6) of the CGST Act. Further, I find that in the facts of the present case as the credit has been accumulated due to clearance of excisable goods, during the Excise Law Regime for export, the bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted. Accordingly, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant the refund within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with interest as per Rules.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The issue in this appeal is whether the refund claim of the appellant, of the amount of cenvat credit balance as on 30.06.2017, has been rightly rejected by the Court below. The appellant was a manufacturer of Sheet Metal Components (Drum) and was registered with the Central Excise Department. The appellant was availing facility of cenvat credit of central excise duty on inputs and service tax on input services. As the appellant was mostly clearing their goods for export under bond (Form ARE-3), cenvat credit was accumulated. Such input credit had been declared in the Return(s) filed before the Department, which is not disputed. As on 30.06.2017, the appellant had cenvat credit balance of Rs.30,48,272/- (including cess). The appellant migrated to GST Regime and also filed Form TRAN-I for transfer of the balance of credit. Such transfer was allowed. The production in the factory of the appellant was lying closed since financial year 2014-2015. The appellant decided not to re-start the production due to his advance age, presently aged about 75 years. Accordingly, the appellant debited the said amount of cenvat credit of Rs.30,70,472/- (in DRC-03) in electronic ledger and applied for refund on 18.03.2020/20.03.2020 under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No.27/2012. Pursuant to filing of refund claim deficiency-cum-show cause notice was issued. Refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 filed as follows :-
