9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 783 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - Monetary limit - Refund claim - Claim for accumulated CENVAT Credit - Whether the Tribunal has committed error in granting claim of cash refund of unused accumulated deemed credit contrary to the provisions of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Notification No. 85/87- CE dated 1st March, 1987 - Held that - It is not disputed by the appellant's counsel that the amount to be refunded is less than ₹ 2 lakh and in view of the Circulars issued by the Department which have been considered in COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., VADODARA-I VS. PHARMANZA HERBAL PVT. LTD. reported in 2014 (9) TMI 330 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs Vs. Stovec Industries Ltd. reported in 2013 (1) TMI 72 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , the Tax Appeal below amount of ₹ 2 lakh is not maintainable. Even though the appeal was filed prior to issuance of the Circulars in the year 2010, the Circulars would apply even to the pending appeal. - Appeal not maintainable.
Issues:
1. Grant of cash refund of unused accumulated deemed credit 2. Interpretation of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Notification No. 85/87-CE dated 1st March, 1987 3. Procedural objections in refund claim 4. Introduction of compounded levy scheme affecting refund claim Issue 1: Grant of cash refund of unused accumulated deemed credit The case involved a dispute regarding the grant of a cash refund for unused accumulated deemed credit. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision to grant the refund, arguing it was contrary to Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Notification No. 85/87-CE dated 1st March, 1987. Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 57A and Notification No. 85/87-CE The Tribunal had to interpret Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Notification No. 85/87-CE dated 1st March, 1987 to determine the validity of the cash refund claim. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in granting the refund contrary to these provisions. Issue 3: Procedural objections in refund claim The Commissioner (Appeals) considered procedural objections raised by the adjudicator regarding the refund claim. The Commissioner held that non-fulfillment of procedural requirements should not result in the denial of the substantive benefit of refund conferred under Rule 57F. The appellant's failure to submit certain attested documents was noted, but the Commissioner found that these procedural issues should not invalidate the refund claim. Issue 4: Introduction of compounded levy scheme affecting refund claim The Commissioner (Appeals) also addressed the impact of the introduction of a compounded levy scheme on the refund claim. It was noted that the appellants could not have utilized the balance towards duty payment due to the scheme's introduction. The Commissioner disagreed with the adjudicator's view that the appellants could have used the balance for duty payments and referenced a previous case to support this position. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable based on the amount to be refunded being less than Rs. 2 lakh and in accordance with Circulars issued by the Department. The Circulars applied even to pending appeals filed prior to their issuance in 2010. The Court referred to previous judgments to support this decision, citing COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., VADODARA-I VS. PHARMANZA HERBAL PVT. LTD. and Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs Vs. Stovec Industries Ltd.
|
