Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1056 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - refund rejected on the ground of Jurisdiction - Appellant exited from LTU - territorial jurisdiction - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that appellant filed seven (7) refund claimed on 28.1.2013 with the Deputy Commissioner, LTU, Bangalore because at that time LTU Bangalore had the jurisdiction to settle all the refund claims of the appellant and when the SCN was issued proposing to deny the refund claim, lack of jurisdiction was not raised in any of the show-cause notices. It is a fact that appellant exited from LTU after filing reply to the show-cause notice - Once the appellant has exited from LTU, it was incumbent on the part of the department to direct the appellant to file the refund claims to various concerned Divisions for claiming the refund. But the department has issued only corrigendum in only 2-3 cases and even in those cases, the respective jurisdictional authorities did not entertain the refund claims filed by the appellant. The refund claim has been rejected on account of lack of jurisdiction and in respect of few refunds, corrigendum has been issued and in respect of few refunds, no corrigendum has been issued. With respect to refund claims where corrigendum is issued, I direct the concerned authorities to accept the copies of refund applications as filed before the LTU and decide the claim of the appellant after following the due process of law including the principles of natural justice - with respect to refund claims where no corrigendum is issued, it is directed that the GST South Commissionerate Bangalore to accept the copies of refund applications as filed before the LTU and dispose of the refund claims after following the due process including the principles of natural justice. Appeal disposed off by way of remand.
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.
|