2023-TIOL-332-CESTAT-DEL
Paras Jewels Vs CC
Cus - The issue involved is as to whether silver findings which are parts of silver jewellery are eligible for exemption from countervailing duty CVD under Notfn 12/2012-CE - CVD exemption notification, as amended from time to time, and from special additional duty of customs SAD under Notfn 21/2012-CUS - Respectfully following the decision of Tribunal in Kinjal Precious Pvt. Ltd. 2023-TIOL-197-CESTAT-DEL , impugned order is upheld: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-331-CESTAT-DEL
Herbal House Vs CGST & CE
CX - The refund claim of assessee was rejected to appellant on the grounds of unjust enrichment - There is no dispute regarding merits of claim of refund or limitation - Both the lower authorities rejected the refund holding that assessee had not discharged its responsibility to show that it had not passed on the burden of excise duty to any other person - Assessee produced a Chartered Accountant's certificate - However, there are no supporting documents such as P&L Accounts and Balance sheets to this certificate - It is not clear from certificate 'if appellant charged excise duty' as mentioned in second paragraph of certificate or 'it had not collected or charged from anyone in the market' as indicated in third paragraph of certificate - There are no supporting documents with this certificate which may help clear this ambiguity - This certificate was not even produced by assessee before lower authorities and it has just been issued by Chartered Accountant after impugned order was passed - Lower authorities should have an opportunity to examine this certificate and supporting documents, if any, that assessee can produce and decide if they had passed on the burden of excise duty on to anyone else or not - Needless to say, even if assessee had passed on the burden of duty to someone else, refund cannot be rejected on that ground and it must be sanctioned and credited to Consumer Welfare Fund - Matter remanded to original authority to examine CA certificate along with any supporting documents which assessee may produce and decide the matter after giving an opportunity to them to present its case: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-330-CESTAT-MUM
BNP Paribas India Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE
ST - Appellant is the exporter of service in nature of Information Technology Software Service - For the quarter from April 2017 to June 2017 they had accumulated CENVAT Credit of around Rs. 12 crores - Appellant filed claim for refund of same under provisions of Notfn 27/2017-CE (NT) - They were issued with a deficiency memo and subsequently some amount of refund was allowed and some amount was rejected - The deficiency memo has not invoked any provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules much less said Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Therefore, said deficiency memo cannot be called a SCN - Refund of Rs. 25,81,828/- was denied to appellant without issue of any SCN - Such an order is not sustainable in law - That part of impugned order through which refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit of Rs. 25,81,828/- was rejected is set aside - Revenue is directed to refund accumulated CENVAT Credit of Rs. 25,81,828/- to appellant: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT |
