Date – 22 August 2022

Facts

• The appellant, M/s Freudenberg Filtration Technologies (I) Pvt Ltd, a manufacturer registered under Central Excise Act, 1944. 
• In the returns for April to June 2017 filed on 12th August, 2017, they had included balance of ₹ 2,39,89,523 which they enhanced to ₹ 2,60,13,068 in revised return filed on 20th September 2017 as some details were not available initially. The appellant, in TRAN-1 filed on 10th July 2017, reported ‘carry forward’ of the credit balance as reflected in the original return. 
• Of the differential amount the amount was claimed as refund under section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act, 2017. 
• The lower authorities held that the transitional provisions permitted ‘carry forward’ of credit into the new scheme and that, in the absence of specific mechanism in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for monetization of credit, the balance that had not been carried forward could not be refunded to them. Further, the cited provision did not cover CENVAT credit balance and that there was no other empowerment for grant of refund under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 
• Aggrieved, the Appellant filed for an appeal.

Issue

• Whether the claim for a refund of differential amount as rejected by the Commissioner of Central Tax is sustainable?

Order

• The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had attempted to dispose of the claim without the benefit of decisions of the Tribunal or the constitutional courts.
• Therefore, the authorities held that the matter should be decided afresh by the original authority while taking into consideration this order or or any order or judgement, in similar circumstances.
• The impugned order was set aside.