Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2943

Whether rejection of accumulated credit refund for error in reflecting closing balance of credit in return valid?

Case:- SERCO GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-III
 
Citation:- 2015 (39) S.T.R. 892 (Tri. - Del.)
 
Brief facts:- This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-3-2012 which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 1-7-2011 in terms of which 3 refund claims for the quarters April, 2008 to June, 2008, October, 2008 to December, 2008 and January, 2009 to March, 2009 amounting to Rs. 18,58,858/-, Rs. 31,25,495/- and Rs. 25,63,429/- respectively were disposed of and no amount was sanctioned. Refund claims were filed in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006.
The appellant is registered under the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) Scheme. In the Software Export Declaration form, it described the nature of services as “Software Development”. In an elaborate discussion about classification of the services exported, the primary Adjudicating Authority came to a finding that
(i) while maintenance or repair of computer software under Annual Maintenance Contract or otherwise, was taxable under “Management, Maintenance or Repair” service under Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 2004. “management, maintenance or repair” of software other than computer software were correctly classifiable under Information Technology Software services under Section 65(105)(zzzze) which became taxable with effect from 16-5-2008 and therefore, the Cenvat credit availed before that date was not admissible and hence was not eligible for refund.
(ii) ST-3 return for June, 2008 did not show unutilized closing balance of Cenvat credit and therefore no refund was admissible.
(iii) The Cenvat credit amount of Rs. 68,27,559/- was wrongly added by them to their Cenvat Credit Account and therefore the amount of refund of Rs. 56,58,994/- was adjusted towards the said amount and therefore not disbursed.
 
Appellant’s contention:-The appellant contended that -
(i)         Its service was covered under the Management, Maintenance or Repair service during the whole period, (but during the hearing in CESTAT, it conceded that it was not pressing for the refund of amount of Cenvat credit taken before 16-5-2008).
(ii)        Merely because there was inadvertent mistake in ST-3 return in not showing correct closing balance of Cenvat credit, that cannot be a ground for rejecting their claim for refund when Cenvat credit balance was available in their Cenvat Credit Account.
(iii)       It filed revised ST-3 return reflecting the correct Cenvat credit balance before adjudication order was issued.
(iv)       In any case the amount of refund should not be adjusted against the dues which had not been determined quasi-judicially and that there had been no show cause notice as to why the so-called wrongly added Cenvat credit balance of Rs. 68,27,559/- should not be denied and recovered. Indeed, no action has been initiated even for recovery of Rs. 11,68,565/- which remained as balance after adjusting the refund of Rs. 56,58,994/- although the primary Adjudicating Authority in para 16.5 of the adjudication order noted as under :
“However, even after such deduction, an amount of Rs. 11,68,565/- is still payable by the applicant for which separate proceedings may be initiated by the Assistant Commissioner (Division - Gurgaon) as the same cannot be done in the present refund proceedings.“
 
Respondent’s contention:-The ld. D.R. stated that the Adjudicating Authority was correct in adjusting the amount of refund towards Cenvat credit amount wrongly added in the ST-3 returns.
 
Reasoning of judgment:-They have considered the contentions of the appellant. In view of concession by the appellant that it was not pressing for refund of the credit taken prior to 16-5-2008, they are not dwelling upon the issue of admissibility or otherwise of refund of Cenvat credit taken, prior to 16-5-2008, or upon the issue of classification. As regards the ground of rejection of refund for the period 16-5-2008 to June, 2008 that the ST-3 return for June, 2008 did not show any unutilized balance of Cenvat credit, it is to be made clear that refund is to be granted on the basis of the Cenvat credit available in the Cenvat Credit Account and not on the basis of the closing balance of Cenvat credit shown in ST-3 Return. Further the appellant submitted revised return showing correct closing balance of Cenvat credit but the same was ignored by the Adjudicating Authority. In this regard, they find that in the case of Jagdamba Polymers Ltd.v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad - 2010 (253)E.L.T.626 (Tri.-Ahmd.)it has been held by CESTAT that omission to reflect the balance in ER 1 return is only a procedural error for which credit cannot be denied when there is no dispute about its eligibility. In the case of Ceolric Servicesv. C.S.T., Bangalore - 2011 (23)S.T.R.369 (Tri.-Bang.), the Hon’ble CESTAT held as under :
In view of the provision of Rule 7C of the Rules, the revised return cannot be ignored simply on the ground that the same has been filed after a period provided under Rule 7B of the Rules. In these circumstances, they find that the matter requires re-consideration by the Adjudicating Authority in view of the provision of Rule 7C of the Rules. The impugned order is set aside, after waiving pre-deposit of the amount of Service Tax, interest and penalty and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue afresh after offering an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
Thus, the mistake in ST-3 return was a rectifiable mistake which was indeed rectified by filing revised ST-3 return and as has been held in the case of Ceolric Services (supra) the revised return should not have been discarded as non-est. Further, even if the Cenvat credit was considered to have been taken wrongly, disallowing the same requires quasi-judicial process involving issuance of show cause notice followed by a speaking order. In this case, it has obviously not been done. Indeed, they find that even after adjusting the amount of refund of Rs. 56,58,994/- towards the Cenvat credit amount of Rs. 68,27,559/- summarily held to be inadmissible, no action has been initiated for recovering the remaining amount of Rs. 11,68,565/-as noted earlier. It has been held in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd.v. C.C.E., Jaipur II - 2009 (15)S.T.R.633 (Tri.-Del.) = 2007 (220)E.L.T.410 (Tri.)that adjustment of refund claim in another pending case is not sustainable. In that case, the Department had adjusted the amount against another case which was pending before Tribunal whereas the appellant obtained stay order. In the case of Metal Forgingsv. UOI - 2002 (146)E.L.T.241 (S.C.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that show cause notice is a mandatory requirement for raising demand and communications, orders, suggestions or advices from Department cannot be deemed to be a show cause notice.
Further, they find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order (in para 6) has noted as under :
6.I find that the appellant had not shown all eligible input credits in the Service Tax return for the period April, 2008 to September, 2008. However, the appellant has shown all the past eligible credits not shown in earlier returns in the opening balance in the Service Tax return for the period October-March, 2009. Also the appellant was maintaining the Cenvat credit register during the period April - September, 2008. In view of the said inadvertent errors, the appellant has revised its Service Tax return for the period April, 2008 - September, 2008 and filed the same on 13 July, 2010 in the Gurgaon division. This revised return correctly mentioned that the appellant had a closing balance of Rs. 68,27,559/- as on September, 2008.
Thus the Commissioner (Appeal) has himself noted that not showing balance of Cenvat credit in the ST-3 return was inadvertent error and the revised return submitted by the appellant correctly mentions the closing balance of Cenvat credit to be Rs. 68,27,559/- as on September, 2008 and that the appellant was maintaining the Cenvat credit register.
Theyfind that the primary Adjudicating Authority in para 16.2 to 16.4 has noted as under :

16.2   October, 2008 - December, 2008 :  
  (Amount in Rs.)  
Total Export Turnover 5,39,02,785  
Total Domestic Turnover 84,23,580  
Total turnover 6,23,26,365  
Cenvat credit availed 36,13,927  
Cenvat credit disallowed (-) 19,316  
Cenvat credit allowed 35,94,611  
Cenvat credit utilized 3,53,996  
Unutilised Cenvat credit 32,40,615  
Maximum Refund allowed = 35,94,611 X 5,39,02,785 6,23,26,365  = Rs. 31,08,789/-
     
16.3   January 2009 to March 2009  
  (Amount in Rs.)  
Total Export Turnover 3,05,80,654  
Total Domestic Turnover 1,28,48,187  
Total Turnover 4,34,28,841  
Cenvat credit availed 36,40,430  
Cenvat credit disallowed (-) 18,780  
Cenvat credit allowed 36,21,651  
Cenvat credit utilized 9,05,546  
Unutilised Cenvat credit 27,16,104  
Maximum Refund allowed = 36,21,651 X 3,05,80,654 4,34,28,841  = Rs. 25,50,205/-

In view of the above findings, it is held that a total amount of Rs. 56,58,994/- (rupees fifty six lacs fifty eight thousand nine hundred ninety four only) is the amount of refund of unutilised Cenvat credit admissible to M/s. Serco Global Services Private Limited for the quarters April, 2008 to June, 2008, October, 2008 to December, 2008 & January, 2009 to March, 2009. However, an amount of Rs. 68,27,559/- which has been wrongly added by them to their Cenvat Credit Account is ordered to be deducted so as to correctly reflect the Cenvat availed utilized and carried forward in subsequent returns, (emphasis added)
It is evident from the above-quoted paras that the Adjudicating Authority has come to a clear finding that for the quarters October, 2008 to December, 2008 and January, 2009 to March, 2009, Rs. 56,58,994/- is the amount of refund of unutilised Cenvat credit admissible to the appellant. As regard the refund for the quarter April, 2008 to June, 2008, in view of the fact that Cenvat Credit Account had balance and a revised ST-3 return was also submitted (although as stated earlier, mere mistake in ST-3 return does not disentitle the appellant for refund) the amount of refund is required to be recomputed in the light of the fact that credit taken before 16-5-2008 is to be disallowed and therefore, the question of refund of the same (i.e. of the credit taken prior to 16-5-2008) would not arise.
In view of the foregoing discussions, they allow the appeal by way of remand with the following directions :
(a)        An amount of Rs. 56,58,994/- held to be admissible as refund for the quarters October, 2008 to December, 2008 and January, 2009 to March, 2009 as per para 16.4 of the primary adjudication order will be sanctioned and disbursed to the appellant within 30 days of receipt of this order.
(b)        In respect of refund claim for the period April, 2008 to June, 2008 the amount of refund due will be recalculated after disallowing the credit taken upto 16-5-2008 and thereafter the amount found admissible as refund will be sanctioned. For the purpose of re-computation the appellant shall submit the necessary calculations for consideration of the primary Adjudicating Authority within 15 days of receipt of this order who will determine and disburse the admissible amount of refund within 45 days of the receipt of the calculations from the appellant after giving it an opportunity of being heard.
 
Decision:-Appeal disposed of
 
Comment:-The analogy of the case is that Refund is to be granted on basis of Cenvat credit available in Cenvat credit account and not on basis of closing balance of Cenvat credit shown in ST-3 return. Revised return showing correct closing balance of Cenvat credit was submitted by assessee subsequently. Mistake in ST-3 return is a rectifiable mistake which can be rectified by filing revised ST-3 return. Revised return submitted by assessee correctly mentions closing balance of Cenvat credit and assessee maintaining Cenvat credit register.  Consequently, it was held that the assessee is eligible for refund of unutilised Cenvat credit.

Prepared by:- Monika Tak

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com