Page 84 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

298 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
the rejection of its refund claims made under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules,
2004.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri Rajaram R., Ld. Ad-
vocate, appeared for the assessee and Shri S. Govindarajan, Ld. AR, appeared for
the Revenue.
3.1 It is the case of the assessee that the assessee is engaged in provid-
ing data analytics and information technology services to its customers located
outside India and by virtue of having fulfilled the conditions as per Rule 6A of
the Service Tax Rules, 2004, it assumed that the output services qualified to be
export of services. Accordingly, in order to avail input services and Cenvat credit
of Service Tax, it made applications for refund of Service Tax and Krishi Kalyan
Cess paid on input services under Rule 5 ibid and also took shelter under Notifi-
cation No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18-6-2012 (for the periods from January,
2017 to March, 2017 and April, 2017 to June, 2017).
3.2 The Adjudicating Authority vide Orders-in-Original dated 28-3-
2018 and 16-4-2018, after considering the explanation of the appellant, however,
rejected the refund claims inter alia on the grounds that the assessee had not ful-
filled the primary condition of debiting equal amount of Cenvat credit under
Rule 5 ibid at the time of filing refund claim and that since the appellant had car-
ried forward in TRAN-1 under GST, refund need not be granted as per Section
142(3) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017.
3.3 The appellant seriously pursued the matter by filing appeals against
the orders of rejection vide Orders-in-Original (supra), but however, the Com-
missioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai, having rejected the
appellant’s claims vide impugned Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 440/2018 (CTA-II),
dated 28-9-2018 and 378/2018 (CTA-II) dated 30-7-2018, the present appeals are
filed by the assessee.
4.1 Ld. Advocate for the appellant, reiterating the arguments advanced
before the lower authorities, also contended as under :
(i) The authorities below did not consider in proper perspective the
explanation of the assessee in their respective orders;
(ii) During the period in dispute, G.S.T. was introduced and hence, it
was the migration/transition by the introduction of which filing of
Service Tax return (ST-3) was done away with and hence, there was
no way the appellant could debit and reflect the same in its ST-3 re-
turn;
(iii) The condition at paragraph 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012 (supra)
was applicable only during the period prior to the G.S.T. regime
since G.S.T. has done away with the filing of ST-3 return;
(iv) The appellant had reversed the equal amount of Cenvat credit from
its books of account, which was also submitted as proof along with
the refund claim;
(v) There was no provision in ACES system to debit the value of refund
claim in the Cenvat balance during the relevant period;
(vi) There being no Service Tax return required to be filed, it had re-
versed the refund from its GSTR-3B filed for the month of April,
2018.
4.2 Ld. Advocate also referred to the C.B.I. & C. Circular No.
GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  204