9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 462 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of double tax paid - case of appellant is that the appellant-assessee have paid double tax on clearance of the goods (which are in the nature of capital goods), as the tax payable was already paid by the buyer of the goods under the scheme of N/N. 33/2012-CE - Held that - The description of the goods actually cleared are the same as that mentioned in the proforma invoice duly attested by the Customs Officer, which fact is undisputed. The respondent have also produced a certificate from M/s Banshi that they procured the machineries from the appellant and that they have paid the duty of Central Excise duty of ₹ 25,94,734/- by the SHIS scrip license. M/s Banshi have also certified that they have not paid the Central Excise duty to the respondent on such clearances. Further, the Assistant Commissioner has also not brought on record that the respondent had cleared any other goods to the said buyers apart from the said clearances - On such categorical facts which are un-rebutted it was held that the substantial benefit of the said notification cannot be denied to the respondent in respect of the transaction in dispute. There is no authority to tax an assessee twice for the same transaction. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Double taxation on the same transaction. 2. Compliance with Notification No.33/2012-CE conditions. 3. Eligibility for refund of central excise duty. 4. Verification of 'actual user' condition. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Double Taxation on the Same Transaction: The primary issue revolves around whether the appellant-assessee was taxed twice on the same transaction. The appellant contended that they paid duty twice: once by debiting the SHI scrip and again by actually paying the duty at the time of clearance. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the SHI scrip was debited by the Customs authority before the goods were cleared, which supports the appellant's claim of double taxation. 2. Compliance with Notification No.33/2012-CE Conditions: The Notification No.33/2012-CE provides an exemption for capital goods cleared under the 'Status Holder Incentive Scheme' (SHIS). The Assistant Commissioner initially rejected the refund claim, stating that the appellant did not comply with the conditions of the notification at the time of clearance. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the SHI scrip was debited before the clearances, and the appellant's failure to present the scrip at the time of clearance was a procedural lapse, not a substantive non-compliance. 3. Eligibility for Refund of Central Excise Duty: The Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the appellant is eligible for a refund of the central excise duty paid. The refund was justified because the SHI scrip had already been debited for the duty amount, and the appellant had paid the duty again at the time of clearance due to a procedural error. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that denying the refund would result in double taxation, which is against legal and constitutional rights. 4. Verification of 'Actual User' Condition: The 'actual user' condition, as per the notification, is a post-clearance condition that the Revenue can verify later. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the verification of the actual user condition is not a prerequisite for granting the refund. The proper officer can verify this condition after the benefit of the notification has been extended to the appellant. Judgment Summary: The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), confirming that the appellant had complied with the substantive conditions of Notification No.33/2012-CE. The Tribunal agreed that the appellant was subjected to double taxation and is entitled to a refund of the central excise duty paid. The procedural lapse of not presenting the SHI scrip at the time of clearance was not sufficient to deny the refund. The Tribunal also affirmed that the verification of the 'actual user' condition is a post-clearance requirement that does not affect the appellant's eligibility for the refund. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross objections filed by the respondent-assessee were allowed for consequential benefits in accordance with the law.
|
