9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 469 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of Refund already paid - CENVAT credit - time limitation - section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - the original adjudicating authority sanctioned refund claim in full but subsequently the department reviewed the Order-in-Original under section 35E(2) of Central Excise Act,1944 and directed the Deputy Commissioner to file an appeal against the said Order-in-Original - penalty u/r 13 (1) of CCR 2002 /15(1) of CCR 2004 - demand of interest. Held that - The issue is no more res-integra as decided by the Tribunal in the case of M/S. GOLDEN PLAST RIGID PVC PIPES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY 2018 (1) TMI 421 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that The second proviso to section 35A of the Act requires, inter alia, that where Commissioner (Appeals) is of the opinion that any amount has been erroneously refunded, appellant should be given notice within the time limit specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
- Partial rejection of refund claim - Eligibility of CENVAT credit refund - Penalty under rule 13 (1) of CCR 2002/15(1) of CCR 2004 - Interest amount dispute Partial Rejection of Refund Claim: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing sugar and other products, filed a refund claim of ?13,95,029, which was partially rejected by the department. The dispute arose from the department's review of the original order sanctioning the refund and subsequent appeal leading to the rejection of a portion of the claim. The appellant argued that a show cause notice under section 11A of the Central Excise Act is necessary for recovery of an erroneous refund, citing relevant legal positions and circulars. The Tribunal noted the importance of timely demands under section 11A for recovery of erroneous refunds and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit Refund: The primary issue revolved around the eligibility of the refund of CENVAT credit amounting to ?3,15,306 availed on various iron and steel items used in civil works. The department argued against the refund, highlighting the appellant's reversal of CENVAT credit and previous penalty imposition upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal referred to precedents and circulars emphasizing the necessity of issuing a show cause notice under section 11A for recovery of an erroneously refunded amount. The Tribunal concluded that no such notice was issued in the present case, indicating a procedural lapse by the department and subsequently allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Penalty under Rule 13 (1) of CCR 2002/15(1) of CCR 2004: The penalty imposed under rule 13 (1) of CCR 2002/15(1) of CCR 2004 was also a point of contention. The department argued that the appellant had not disputed the disallowance and payment of CENVAT credit, which was already reversed. However, the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty and emphasize the necessity of a show cause notice for recovery of erroneous refunds under section 11A impacted the overall judgment in favor of the appellant. Interest Amount Dispute: Furthermore, the dispute over the interest amount of ?40,308 was addressed in the context of the broader issues of refund claim rejection and CENVAT credit eligibility. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of legal precedents, circulars, and procedural requirements under the Central Excise Act played a crucial role in resolving the interest amount dispute in conjunction with the primary issues discussed in the judgment. The overall decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appellant's appeal encompassed the resolution of the interest amount dispute as part of the comprehensive legal analysis conducted by the Tribunal.
|
