I. TRIBUNAL
25 Khushboo Beauty Care vs. CCE&ST, Daman [2021-TIOL-467-CESTAT-Mum] Date of order: 27th July, 2021
When it is established that the goods are received by the appellant job-worker, credit should be allowed even if the Bill of Entry is in the name of the principal supplier
FACTS
The issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on the strength of the Bill of Entry which was in the name of the supplier of the raw material, whereas the goods were received by the appellant as a job-worker and used in the manufacture of goods on job-work basis.
HELD
The Tribunal noted that right from the show cause notice, the case of the Department is only whether the appellant is entitled for CENVAT credit on the strength of the Bill of Entry which is in the name of the principal supplier along with the declaration given by the supplier. The Tribunal finds that there is no dispute about the receipt and the use of the goods supplied under the cover of the Bill of Entry along with the declaration in favour of the appellant. Even though the Bill of Entry is in the name of the supplier, but on the basis of the declaration it is established that the material has been supplied to the appellant for job work, therefore, merely because the Bill of Entry bears the name of the supplier, CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the appellant.
26 M/s NSSL Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2021-TIOL-469-CESTAT-Mum] Date of order: 3rd August, 2021
Refund of service tax paid under reverse charge after 1st July, 2017 is available in accordance with the provisions of the erstwhile statute by virtue of section 142(3) of the CGST Act
FACTS
The appellant filed a refund application claiming refund of service tax paid by it under the Reverse Charge Mechanism. The refund application was rejected on the ground that ITC can only be claimed under GST / CGST Act, 2017 and not otherwise. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon sub-section (8)(a) of section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017 to reject the refund application which deals with assessment and adjudication.
HELD
The Tribunal noted that the appellant is not falling within the scope and ambit of sub-section (8)(a) of section 142 inasmuch as no assessment / adjudication orders were passed by competent authorities in determining the tax liability, which the appellant was required to pay under the erstwhile statute. Actually, the case of the appellant is governed under provisions of sub-section (3) of section 142 which provides that every claim of refund filed after the appointed day shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the erstwhile statute. The authorities below have not questioned the issue regarding the entitlement of the CENVAT credit under the erstwhile CENVAT statute. On careful examination of the statutory provisions, it is held that the refund claims should merit consideration under the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 142 and, as such, the appellant should be entitled to the benefit of refund of service tax paid by it.
