Page 83 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

2020 ] GLOBAL ANALYTICS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. COMMR. OF GST & C. EX., CHENNAI 297
ceived for providing Business Support Service to the bookmakers and qua receiv-
ing charges from caterers to roam in the appellant’s premises as consideration for
providing Renting of Immovable Property Service has rightly been confirmed.
Thus, there is no infirmity in the order under challenge. Order is accordingly,
upheld. Appeals are hereby rejected.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 9-8-2019)

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 297 (Tri. - Chennai)

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
[COURT NO. I]
Shri P. Dinesha, Member (J)
GLOBAL ANALYTICS INDIA PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF GST & C. EX., CHENNAI
Final Order Nos. 40942-40943/2019, dated 22-7-2019 in Appeal
No. ST/42172 & 42435/2018-SM
Refund - Cenvat credit on input services used in export of output ser-
vices in pre-GST regime, i.e., January, 2017 to June, 2017 and carried forward in
TRAN-1 under GST - Since filing of ST-3 return done away with introduction
of GST, failure to debit Cenvat amount at the time of claiming its refund as
required under condition 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) cannot be
a ground for rejecting such refund claim when assessee reversed said amount
in GSTR-3B filed for the month of April, 2018 - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules,
2004 and Section 142(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. [paras 3.1,
3.2, 4.1, 9]
Appeals allowed
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Kiwi Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
— 2018 (2) T.M.I. 689 - CESTAT, Allahabad — Referred ........................................................ [Para 4.2]
Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2004 (171) E.L.T. 296 (S.C.) — Referred ............... [Para 5]
Inductoterm Group Pune P. Ltd. v. CST
— 2017 (8) T.M.I. 218 - CESTAT Mumbai — Referred ............................................................. [Para 4.2]
Kellogg and Andelson Management Service Pvt. Ltd. v. CST
— 2018-TIOL-1774-CESTAT-Mad — Referred .......................................................................... [Para 4.2]
Kopran Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (11) T.M.I. 419 - CESTAT Mumbai — Referred ............... [Para 4.2]
Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (325) E.L.T. 387 (Tribunal) — Referred ...................... [Para 4.2]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.I. & C. Circular No. 58/32/2018-G.S.T., dated 4-9-2018 ...................................................... [Paras 4.2, 8]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Rajaram R., Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri S. Govindarajan, Authorized Representative, for
the Respondent.
[Order]. - By this appeal, the assessee is questioning the correctness of
GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  203