Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (2) TMI 7 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
Rejection of refund claim due to High Sea Sale transactions being considered as trading activity under exempted service, failure to exercise option under Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004, and pending Show Cause Notice demanding recovery of Credit.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and High Sea Sale transactions, faced a refund claim rejection of ?8,38,752. The Department viewed High Sea Sales as trading activities under exempted services, necessitating adherence to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 due to lack of separate accounts. The appellant voluntarily reversed ?8,38,752, later realizing an excess reversal. The Original Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim, prompting this appeal.

The appellant argued that High Sea Sales were distinct from manufacturing, with no common input services. They erred in calculating the reversal amount under Rule 6(3A)(c), reversing excess Credit. The Department contended that without exercising the Rule 6(3A) option, the appellant should pay 6% of traded goods' value. A pending Show Cause Notice further complicated matters.

The Tribunal questioned the classification of High Sea Sales as exempted trading activities under Rule 2(e) of CCR, 2004. The audit's objection lacked evidence of common input services for High Sea Sales. The appellant's voluntary Credit reversal aimed to avoid disputes, focusing solely on the refund claim rejection.

Refund denial was based on the appellant's failure to exercise the option and the pending Show Cause Notice. The appellant's reversal error indicated an excess of ?8,38,752, justifying the refund claim. Precedents supported pro rata Credit reversal. The pending Show Cause Notice did not justify refund rejection.

The Tribunal overturned the refund rejection, emphasizing the flawed grounds for denial. The appeal succeeded, granting consequential reliefs as per law. The judgment was pronounced on 28.01.2019.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates