|
2022-TIOL-1066-CESTAT-AHM
Pon Pure Chemicals India Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appellant have paid double customs duty due to technical glitch in online payment portal, subsequently they filed refund claim - There is no dispute that appellant had indeed submitted their refund claim which had been received by office on 30.08.2016 - Though the refund was returned for some query for want of documents and subsequently appellant had resubmitted the same claim on 08.11.2017, date of filing of refund claim shall be taken as 30.08.2016 not 08.11.2017, accordingly, the refund was filed well within the time - It is settled that even if refund claim is filed well within the time and same is returned for want of clarification or documents and claim was resubmitted, date of filing the refund application is taken as date of first filing refund claim and not the date on which the claim was resubmitted - The first time refund claim was filed on 30.08.2016 which was well within the stipulated time - Accordingly, refund filed by the appellant is not hit by limitation - Hence, impugned order is not sustainable, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1065-CESTAT-AHM
Sanghi Industries Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Appellant is manufacturer of Cement and availed Cenvat Credit of Service tax paid on outward GTA services used for transportation of their finished goods from their factory to customer's premises, i.e., beyond the place of removal, which is alleged to be not proper in view of definition of "input service" as given at Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - In earlier matter of appellant's own case, Tribunal after considering the documents, i.e., copy of invoices, purchase order and Chartered Accountant certificate decided the eligibility of cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward freight - However, appellant has come forward with documents/details, i.e., copy of purchase order, copies of invoices, copy of agreements, copy consignment notes, copy of certificate of chartered accountant - Impugned order is not in accordance with law - Commissioner (A) did not deal properly with these documents/ details and facts submitted by appellant before him in impugned order - Therefore, case needs to be reconsidered by Commissioner (A) to decide the appeal a fresh after considering said documents and vital facts and Board Circulars and all judgments relied upon by appellant - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1064-CESTAT-MAD
Aurolab Vs CGST & CE
CX - The issue arises is, whether the refund claim is hit by bar of unjust enrichment - Undisputedly, appellant has mentioned the duty element in invoices issued to buyers - The presumption envisaged in section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 then applies and burden rests upon appellant to rebut this presumption - In impugned order, Commissioner (A) has discussed that though the appellants produced Cost Accountant and Chartered Accountant's certificate, these are not certificates issued by their statutory auditors - Further, it is also not stated in certificates that they have scrutinized financial statements of appellant - Even after remand, appellant has not been able to produce necessary documents to substantiate that they have not passed on the incidence of duty to buyers of goods - Rejection of refund claim is legal and proper: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1063-CESTAT-MUM
PMI Organisation Centre Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CT
ST - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order in which denial of refund by original authority was upheld to the extent of Rs. 35,34,735/- - First appellate authority has traversed beyond issues raised in SCN by insisting upon filtration through mesh of amended definition of 'input service' in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Furthermore, first appellate authority appears to have placed undue premium on necessity of furnishing evidence of 'input services' having been directly consumed in rendering eligible output that are exported - The first appellate authority appears to have insinuated aspects into rendering of services that neither enumerated nor even intended by Finance Act, 1994 - It would, therefore, be appropriate to ignore the finding of first appellate authority except to the extent of upholding of order of original authority on ground of lack of nexus which too has found place in his discussion in relation to each of the service that was sought to be barred from eligibility to avail credit - Order of original authority, goes a step further and after questioning the eligibility for inclusion of tax paid on impugned services, has set aside the availment of CENVAT credit to that extent - The specific authority for doing so arises only from Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which has not been invoked - By denial of refund as a consequence of denial of eligibility for CENVAT credit, the final outcome has traversed beyond the scope of rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and which, but for the finding on nexus, was to be attributed to the tax on 'input services' used for rendering 'output service', and therefore the order itself is not in accordance with law - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1062-CESTAT-KOL
ITC Sonar Vs CCGST & CE
ST - The issue arises is, whether the CENVAT Credit has been rightly disallowed under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 and whether penalty imposed under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been rightly imposed - The only issue to be decided is, whether 3rd Proviso of Rule 4(1) of CCR, 2004 as introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2014, has got retrospective effect - Said proviso was introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2014 and there is no stipulation in amending Notification that the same shall apply retrospectively - Rules of interpretation provide that whenever any statute is newly added, same has got only prospective effect unless it is specifically provided in amending statute or amendment is by way of substitution of an existing provision mainly by way of clarification or removal of defects - Accordingly, said proviso to Rule 4(1) Rules, 2004 has got only prospective effect - Tribunal in case of Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-985-CESTAT-MUM has observed that Notification No. 21/2014-C.E.(N.T.) should be applicable to those cases, wherein invoices were issued on or after 11.07.2014 for the reason that Notification was not applicable to invoices issued prior to date of Notification - Therefore, at the time of issuance of invoices, no time limit was prescribed and limitation of six months cannot be made applicable - As such issue stands decided in favour of assessee by said decision of Tribunal - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT |
|
