Order date – 27 October 2022

 Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. Dhyan Networks and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in providing Business Support Services to their foreign clients and are also registered with the Department. They filed refund claim for the period from July 2014 to September 2014 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-C.E (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012.
• The authority sanctioned refund in partially to the appellant amounting to Rs.2,93,427/-, but however, it was held that the appellant could take re-credit of the same in view of paragraph 2(i) of Notification No. 27/2012.
• Aggrieved Appellant have filed an appeal

Issue – 

Whether the partial rejection of refund and re-credit are in Order? 

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that the grievance of the appellant is that the amount of Rs.2,93,427/- was not sanctioned to the appellant in cash and instead, was directed to take re-credit of the said amount. Whatever the reasons may be for rejection of cash refund, it has to be seen that after the introduction of G.S.T., the said direction to take re-credit has become impractical for the appellant. 
• Also, in terms of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Veer-o Metals Pvt. Ltd it is held that the appellant is entitled to cash refund as per sub-section (3) and sub-section (6)(a) of Section 142 of CGST Act. As the appellant has been allowed to take re-credit and is not able to do the same due to the introduction of G.S.T. the appellant is eligible for refund of the amount. 
• The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.