9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1176 - AT - Service TaxRefund of unutilized and accumulated CENVAT credit - rejection of refund on the ground that the conditions stipulated under Notification No. 27/2012 CE-(NT) dated 18.06.2012 read with Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 have not been fulfilled - scope of SCN - interest on delayed refund - Held that - The impugned order is bad in law as it has traveled beyond the Order-in-Original and rejected the prayer of interest on altogether new ground which was not there in the Order-in-Original which is not permitted under law. Further, Tribunal in the case of Netapp India Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (4) TMI 478 - CESTAT BANGALORE has already granted interest for delayed payment of refunds after following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 2011 (10) TMI 16 - Supreme Court of India . Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim and interest on delayed sanction of refund. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order rejecting the appellant's refund claims for unutilized and accumulated CENVAT credit of Service Tax. The Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellant did not challenge the original order sanctioning the refund, which had attained finality. The appellant contended that interest should be granted on the delayed sanction of refunds, citing judicial precedents. The appellant argued that Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act applies to refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CCR, supported by decisions like Commr. of C.Ex. Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. and Commr. of C.Ex., Salem Vs. Rajalakshmi Textile Processors. The appellant also referenced the case of Netapp India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex. where interest was granted for delayed refund. The appellant further argued that the Commissioner (A) cannot introduce new grounds beyond the Order-in-Original, citing legal principles from cases like Tawi Chemical Industries Vs. Commr. of C.Ex. and Modi Xerox Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs. The appellant highlighted that interest is a consequential relief under Section 11BB, and various decisions support the applicability of Section 11BB to refund claims, such as Shroff United Chemicals Ltd. Vs. UOI and UOI Vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd. The appellant also referred to Circular No. 570/61/2002-CX issued by CBEC and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal by the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Industries. The Tribunal found the impugned order to be legally flawed as it introduced new grounds beyond the original order, which is impermissible. Citing the precedent set by the case of Netapp India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that interest should be granted for delayed refund payments, as supported by judicial decisions like Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Sterlite Industries Ltd. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument that Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act applies to refund claims, as established by various court decisions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the appellant, providing consequential relief as necessary.
|
