Case Law Details
Thorogood Associates India Private Limited Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)
In present case, the appellant has complied with the conditions prescribed under para 2(h) of the Notification No.27/2012 and debited the CENVAT account on 31.3.2018 though there was some delay in debiting the CENVAT account but the delay in debiting the CENVAT account is only a procedural delay and will not defeat the substantial right of the appellant to claim refund.
Further, I find that when the appellant filed the refund claim in February 2018, by that time, the erstwhile Service Tax Regime was repealed with GST Regime and the refund claim was filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and there was no occasion to debit the CENVAT credit account and reflect the same in ST-3 Returns as the company by that time was filing GST Returns under GST law.
I also find that appellant had not transitioned the said credit to GST Regime and has submitted the proof for not transitioned the credit to GST Regime. The decision relied upon by the learned AR is not applicable to the present case and is distinguishable on facts and legal provisions.
This Tribunal in the case of Chariot International Pvt. Ltd. cited supra by relying upon the Division Bench decision of the CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. – 2015 (325) ELT 387 had held that when the assessee reverses the credit in the GSTR-3B but there was only a delay in debiting the same, then in that case, it is deemed to be procedural delay and will not disentitle the appellant from claiming the refund.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
