AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Quarter,Refund claimed,"Debit from CENVAT
Account
July 2016 to September, 2016","Rs 22,41,558/-","Rs 22,41,558/-
October to December, 2016","Rs 24,29,912/-","Rs 24,29,912/-
January 2017 to March 2017,"Rs 31,46,698/-","Rs 31,46,698/-
CENVAT Account of the claimant. The argument advanced need to be considered in the light of the order of the CESTAT in case of Wave,,
Mechanics Pvt Ltd [2019-TIOL-3178-CESTAT-BANG], referred earlier (by the Learned Authorized Representative), wherein following has been",,
held:,,
“6.1 Further, I find that as far as rejection of cash refund by both the authorities is concerned, there is no infirmity and I uphold that",,
said findings. Further, the findings of the original authority that the amount of refund claim would lapse under Section 142 of Central",,
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is not tenable in law, since there was no dispute about the fact that at the time of filing of refund claim,",,
the appellant had debited the whole amount in their Cenvat account as required by the then Notification No. 27/2012, dated 18-6-2012 and",,
when the GST was introduced, there was no amount lying in the balance in the appellant’s record. Further, provision to sub-section (3)",,
of Section 142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is not applicable in the present case. The appellants are entitled to take the re-",,
credit of the Cenvat for which they had filed the refund claims and the said amount will not lapse as per Section 142 of the Central Goods,,
and Services Tax Act, 2017.â€",,
4.7 Something which is direct consequence of the rejection of the refund claim under Rule 5, cannot be said to be a no plea or a ground as learned",,
Authorized Representative has sought to make out. Since the condition of debit of the amount claimed as refund under Rule 5, is a condition prior to",,
filing the refund claim, the consequence of rejection will be the restoration of credit which was debited by the applicant. This restoration cannot be",,
considered as new ground and the decisions referred by the learned Authorized Representative are distinguishable for this reason.,,
5.1 In view of our discussions as above the appeal is disposed of as per the para 4.2 and 4.7 above.,,
(Order pronounced in the open court),,