Page 141 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

2020 ] IN RE : UMBERTO CERAMICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. 355
visions; that Rule 117 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is applicable
in case where assessee engaged in manufacture of exempted goods became taxa-
ble in GST regime which is not present case; that their claim of accumulated in-
put tax credit filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 required to be pro-
cessed in accordance with the provisions of Central Excise law read with Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004 and not under GST Law even if the same is filed after the ap-
pointed day. They stated the provisions of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 in
this regard and stated that non-filling of TRAN-1 cannot be the reason to reject
the legitimate refund claim.
4. In the Personal hearing held on 3-4-2019 Shri Vijay Khumbhat, Chief
Finance Officer of the appellant firm reiterated the grounds of appeal.
5. I have carefully gone through the appeal wherein refund of Cenvat
Credit not carried forwarded under GST is claimed by the appellant under Rule 5
of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on 28-6-2018 i.e., after appointed day, it needs to be
determined whether refund under erstwhile Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
is admissible under GST regime to the claimant who has not filed GST TRAN-1
required under Rule 117 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
6. I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the claim on the
ground that the appellant had not filed declaration electronically in the Form
GST TRAN-1 as stipulated under Rule 117 of Central Goods and Services Tax
Rules, 2017. I observe two facts are undisputed. One, the claim has been filed
after the appointed day and second, the claim has been preferred by the claimant
under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and governed by Notification No.
27/2012-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18-6-2012, While introducing the GST, necessary tran-
sitional provisions have been made in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017. Relevant provisions of the same are reproduced below :
SECTION 142. Miscellaneous transitional provisions. -
*****
(3) Every claim for refund filed by any person before, on or after the ap-
pointed day, for refund of any amount of CENVAT credit, duly, tax, interest or
any other amount paid under the existing law, shall be disposed of in accord-
ance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to
him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary con-
tained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of
sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) :
Provided that where any claim for refund of CENVAT credit is fully or par-
tially rejected, the amount so rejected shall lapse :
Provided further that no refund shall he allowed of any amount of CENVAT
credit where the balance of the said amount as on the appointed day lias been car-
ried forward under this Act.
6.1 Section 42(3) above stipulates that refund claim filed in respect of
Cenvat credit shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing
law. It is therefore, observed that the adjudicating authority was required to pro-
cess the present claim in accordance with Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
and in accordance with the procedure, safeguards, conditions and limitations
prescribed under Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18-6-2012. Perusal
of the impugned order does not reveal that it has been attended by the [***] relat-
ed authority in accordance with the same. So far as filing of refund claim under
Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 & notification supra concerns I find that
there is no restriction for the same under Central Goods and Services Tax
Act/Rules, 2017 for the same. It is therefore, obvious that refund claim if any
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  141