Case Details: Bajaj Foods Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-II (2025) 37 Centax 403 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dr Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha, Member (J)
- Shri R.R. Dave, Consultant, for the Appellant.
- Shri P. Ganesan, Superintendent (AR), for the Revenue.
Facts of the Case
The appellant-assessee, being a service recipient, paid service tax under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) prior to the implementation of GST. After GST came into force, the appellant could not avail or carry forward the credit of such tax and therefore filed a refund claim. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the claim was not covered under the existing law. The amount was treated as audit arrears, and it was further stated that the credit was barred by the transitional provisions. The appellant challenged the rejection of the refund. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that service tax paid under RCM prior to 01-07-2017 was eligible as Cenvat credit under the applicable law. The Tribunal further held that once GST had been implemented and such credit could neither be availed nor carried forward, the claim for refund under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act could not be denied merely because it did not fit within Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for consequential action.
List of Cases Cited
- Asstt. Commissioner v. Ganges International (P) Ltd. — (2022) 1 Centax 76 (Mad.) = 2023 (68) G.S.T.L. 134 (Mad.) — Relied on [Paras 6.4, 7]
- Lifecell International Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner — 2022 (66) G.S.T.L. 446 (Tri.-Mad) — Relied on [Paras 6.3, 7]
- New Age Laminators Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner — 2022 (381) E.L.T. 88 (Tri.-Del) — Relied on [Paras 6.5, 7]
- Thermax Limited v. Union of India — 2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 60 (Guj.) — Relied on [Para 6.6, 7]
