Case Law Details
Minvesta Infotech Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
It is argued by the learned consultant that prior to introduction of GST, appellant would have been able to take re credit of the said amount when refund claims are denied as time-barred. After the introduction of GST, the appellant is not able to take re credit of the said amount. Thus, the alternative prayer put forward at the time of argument is to grant refund taking into consideration the practical difficulty in taking re credit after introduction of GST. There was no adjudication in regard to the application of Sec. 142 of GST Act, 2017. There was no direction in the order to take re credit. Some amount is denied as not eligible also. The proceedings have emanated by filing refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012, the adjudication has been only in terms of the above and not under the provisions of Section 142 of GST, 2017. The Tribunal being a creature of the statute cannot grant reliefs extraneous to the adjudication. For the said reason, this prayer of the appellant is untenable. However, the appellant is at liberty to seek relief in respect of re credit and consequent refund as they are eligible for re credit in terms of Notification No.27/2012.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing and exporting services of software development and maintenance services. They are registered with the Department under the category ‘Information Technology Software Services’. They filed six refund claims on 5.10.2017 for an amount of Rs.84,54,926/- of accumulated CENVAT credit for the period October 2015 to March 2017 in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012. After due process of law, the refund sanctioning authority rejected some of the refund claims on the ground of being time-barred and also as inadmissible CENVAT availed. The appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against such orders who vide the orders impugned upheld the same. Hence these appeals.
2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. Consultant Shri Vikram Kataraya appeared and argued the matter. He submitted the details of the refund claims which were rejected by the authorities below as under:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
