2023-TIOL-148-CESTAT-MAD
Core Minerals Vs CST
ST - Refund - Notification 41/2007-ST - Appellate Authority gave a partial relief, thereby granting a substantial refund, but however, concluded that the assessee -appellant's claim of refund to the extent of Rs.36,10,218/- was time-barred - Aggrieved by that part of the First Appellate Authority's order, the present appeal has been preferred by the assessee - The Revenue has also preferred appeal against the other part of the order of the First Appellate Authority wherein the First Appellate Authority has held that the assessee's claim for refund was within the time-frame prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Assessee submitted that Service Tax was paid not on the date of export, but only on 06.10.2008 and the appellant's refund claim, being made on 30.06.2009, was very much within the period of one year prescribed under Section 11B ibid.
Held : Issue to be decided is no more res integra - In the case of Sansera Engineering Ltd. 2022-TIOL-102-SC-CX, it is held by the Supreme Court that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B shall have to be applied since Section 11B ibid is a substantive provision in the parent statute and the subordinate legislation in the form of Notification cannot override the parent statute - Even the subsequent subordinate legislation in the form of Notification No. 17/2009 dated 07.07.2009 has prescribed time-limit of one year - Bench is of the considered view that the assessee's claim for refund was very much in order and the denial of refund is held to be bad and contrary to the law and therefore, the impugned order is set aside - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with consequential benefits and Revenue appeal is dismissed: CESTAT [para 8, 9, 10.2, 11, 12]
- Assessee appeal allowed/Revenue appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-147-CESTAT-MAD
Core Minerals Vs CST
ST - Notification 17/2009-ST - Appellant's only grievance is whether the direction of the First Appellate Authority to deny the refund for non-submission of original invoices is correct.
Held: Explanation under the proviso in the said Notification at (g) only requires the production of documents and it is not in dispute that the appellant had indeed produced the documents (though a few photocopy of some invoices) - Thus, Bench is of the clear view that the appellant has complied with the requirement of the Notification under which it had claimed the refund - The view, therefore, of the lower authorities that the refund cannot be granted for non-production of original documents / export invoices is not a requirement of the said subordinate legislation - Authorities below have erred in rejecting the refund claim - Appeal allowed with consequential benefits: CESTAT [para 10, 11, 12]
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-146-CESTAT-MAD
CGST & CE Vs Deepak Cables India Ltd
CX - Case of the department is that the assessee has collected the excess duty from M/s. PGCL - Assessee has furnished a certificate issued by M/s. PGCL to show that M/ s.PGCL has not reimbursed the amount to the assessee - They have also furnished a Chartered Accountant Certificates along with both refund claims to prove that the said amount was shown as receivables under the head 'Loan and Advances" in their financial statement.
Held: Madras High Court has in the case of Flow Tech Power held that when the assessee has submitted the Chartered Accountant certificate to prove that the duty has not been passed on to their customers, the refund is not hit by unjust enrichment - Assessee is eligible for refund on merits as well having satisfied the test of unjust enrichment – Assessee appeal allowed and department appeal is dismissed: CESTAT [para 6.3, 6.7, 7]
- Assessee appeal allowed/Department appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
