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 - 2020 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (1) TMI 1056 - AT - Central Excise


Issues involved:
Appeal against rejection of refund due to lack of jurisdiction and remand to original authority for verification.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdictional Issue:
The appellants, engaged in IT and ITES services, filed refund claims after being registered with Large Tax Payers Unit. The dispute arose when the LTU authorities rejected the request to scrap capital goods without duty payment. The issue of lack of jurisdiction was raised post-exit from LTU, leading to rejection of refund claims. The original authority disallowed a partial refund of ?21,54,016 out of total ?31,44,668. The Commissioner (A) remanded the matter for verification. The appellant argued that the rejection based on jurisdictional grounds was not raised in the show-cause notice, violating the principle that the Department cannot go beyond the notice.

2. Refund Claim Analysis:
The appellant contended that the Order-in-Original exceeded the show-cause notice scope by introducing jurisdictional issues. The appellant's refund claim of ?9,90,652 was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner based on detailed reasoning, including compliance with Circular No.74/2001. The appellant cited precedents where similar refund claims were allowed in different jurisdictions, emphasizing the Department's inconsistency. The appellant also argued against the retrospective application of Circular No.13/2017, asserting that beneficial circulars apply retrospectively.

3. Decision and Directions:
The Tribunal found the rejection of the ?21,54,016 refund solely on jurisdictional grounds unsustainable. It directed concerned authorities to accept refund applications filed before LTU and decide claims following due process. Regarding the ?9,90,652 refund, the Tribunal held the remand for verification unnecessary as the original authority had already verified compliance with Circular No.74/2001. The Tribunal ruled against the retrospective application of the 2017 Circular amendment. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal complexities surrounding the jurisdictional issue and refund claims, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural fairness and legal principles in tax matters.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates