|
2023-TIOL-109-CESTAT-KOL
Shakambari Overseas Traders Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of non-alloy ingot and industrial oxygen gas - A SCN was issued to appellant alleging irregular availment of CENVAT Credit - The manufacturer has taken entire credit in respect of inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of final products - Suppliers are registered Central Excise dealers - The invoices under which consignment was received by appellant is not in dispute - Invoices clearly indicate duty-paid character of said goods - Said inputs were received in factory of appellants and consumed therein - It is the case of Revenue that inputs being of prime quality appellants could not have used the same for melting - There is no restriction in CENVAT Credit Rules that appellants should not use prime quality materials for manufacture of final products - As long as there is no dispute regarding receipt and consumption of inputs, duty- paid character thereof, benefit of CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to appellant - There is no dispute as regards the payment made by appellant to supplier and therefore benefit of CENVAT Credit cannot be denied - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-108-CESTAT-MAD
DSM Nutritional Products India Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The only issue that is to be decided is, whether rejection of refund claim of appellant as confirmed in impugned order is in order - First Appellate Authority has confirmed rejection of refund only on the ground that refund claim of appellant was hit by provisions of Section 26A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 - This finding is specifically challenged by appellant since, according to it, claim for refund was under Section 27 ibid only - Scope of sub-section (3) is limited to cumulative conditions under clause (a) to (d) of Section 26A(1) ibid. and refund claim of any duty that has been paid could be entertained provided the said goods are cleared for home consumption - By ordering destruction, imported goods in question could never be cleared for home consumption and consequently, provisions of Section 26A ibid. would not apply - The only provision, therefore, that applies is Section 27 ibid and hence, rejection of refund by taking recourse to Section 26A(3) ibid by authorities below is incorrect - Section 27 ibid also prescribes a time-limit of one year, but same is subject to saving proviso provided under sub-section (1B) - There is no dispute that appellant paid duty provisionally and same is reflected in orders of lower authorities, including the order of destruction dated 27.05.2015 and thus, in terms of clause (c) to sub-section (1B) of Section 27 ibid, limitation (of one year), if at all, would apply from date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof - Even there is no dispute that Revenue authorities have not passed final assessment order as yet - Authorities below have erred in rejecting refund claim, in a haste, even before a final assessment could be made as required under law - Impugned order cannot sustain and hence, same is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-107-CESTAT-AHM
Bombardier Transportation India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - Interest on delayed refund - Appellant had initially filed the refund application on 13.06.2011 - It is this refund claim which was rejected by sanctioning authority and matter had travelled up to Tribunal - Tribunal vide order dated 07.10.2021 allowed the appeal of appellant - Consequent to this order, sanctioning authority has granted refund, however, interest was not allowed - Commissioner (A) in appellant's appeal before him rejected the claim of interest on the ground that appellant have claimed the refund after the Tribunal's order vide letter dated 22.02.2022 therefore, refund was sanctioned within three months from that date - It is found that Commissioner (A) has gravely erred in misinterpreting overall provision and clarification of board circular - Refund application filed on 13.06.2011 shall be treated as refund application as mentioned under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 - As per Tribunal's order, appellant stand entitled for refund right from the date of application i.e. 13.06.2011 accordingly, they are legally entitled for interest after expiry of three months from date of refund application i.e. 13.06.2011 - From the judgment of Supreme Court in case of M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX , no ambiguity found on the position that if refund is not sanctioned within three months from date of filing, appellant is entitled for interest on refund sanctioned - Accordingly, appellant is legally entitled for interest on refund : CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
