Page 117 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

2020 ] FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CGST, GURUGRAM 331
1 3. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
4. I have gone through the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Global
Analytics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the facts of the case are as under :-
“3.1 It is the case of the assessee that the assessee is engaged in providing
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 Notification 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
fulfilled 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 appel-
lant had carried forward in TRAN-1 under GST, refund need not be grant-
ed 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
Commissioner 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”
5. In these set of facts, this Tribunal has observed as under:-
“7.1 It is an undisputed fact that the appellant did not reverse the equal
amount as required by the condition at paragraph 2(h) of Notification No.
27/2012 (supra). But the fact also remains that there was no provision in the
ACES system to debit the value of refund and also the fact that the entire
credit which was carried forward in TRAN-1 stood reversed by the appel-
lant voluntarily in its GSTR-3B filed for the month of April 2018.
7.2 The above facts, according to me, are sufficient compliances with the
condition at paragraph 2(h) since post G.S.T., the scenario is different than
the one prevailing prior to G.S.T. regime. Otherwise, it would become an
impossible task for an assessee, more so when the filing of ST-3 returns it-
self was done away with.
8. I also note that the Board has clarified the above position in its Circular
No. 58/32/2018-G.S.T. (supra) and I also note that more or less the same
view is expressed in all the orders relied on by the Ld. Advocate for the ap-
pellant.
9. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the denial of
refund is not in accordance with law and hence, the impugned orders can-
not sustain. The same are set aside.”

________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  117