2022 (2) TMI 1118 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of duty (sugar cess) paid - Sugar Cess is not expressly stipulated as a levy on which credit can be taken under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - part refund rejected on the ground that for the said amount covering the period August 2014 to June 2015, the Appellant has been served with a Show Cause Notice which is pending adjudication and hence the said amount being under dispute cannot be refunded to the Appellant - HELD THAT - The issue in the said demand notice also relates to eligibility of Cenvat credit on sugar cess and when the same has already been decided in favour of the Appellant assessee, then the earlier demand notices become infructuous and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Further for the same period on the same issue, two demand notices cannot be sustained and hence the order of the learned First Appellate Authority needs to be modified to the above extent. Thus in the instant case, the refund claim of the Appellant needs to be allowed - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Denial of refund of Cenvat Credit of Sugar Cess.
2. Appeal against the rejection of refund application.
3. Appeal against the amount sanctioned as refund.
4. Interpretation of eligibility of Cenvat credit on Sugar Cess.
5. Consideration of precedents and judicial discipline in adjudication proceedings.

Issue 1 - Denial of refund of Cenvat Credit of Sugar Cess:
The Appellant's refund application for Cenvat Credit of Sugar Cess was denied by the Adjudicating Authority based on the grounds that Sugar Cess was not expressly stipulated as a levy eligible for credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The First Appellate Authority partly allowed the refund claim, leading to the current appeal.

Issue 2 - Appeal against the rejection of refund application:
The Appellant appealed against the rejection of the balance amount of the refund claim, arguing that the amount was pending adjudication due to a Show Cause Notice served for the same period. The Appellant contended that since the eligibility of Cenvat credit had been established in their favor, the refund for the prior period should not be withheld.

Issue 3 - Appeal against the amount sanctioned as refund:
The Revenue appealed against the amount sanctioned as refund by the First Appellate Authority, citing a judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Unicorn Industries v. UOI, which held that exemptions for units in the northeast region did not apply to education cess. The Revenue sought to challenge the refund granted by the First Appellate Authority.

Issue 4 - Interpretation of eligibility of Cenvat credit on Sugar Cess:
The Tribunal analyzed the substantial question of law considered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the Renuka Sugar case, which directly dealt with the entitlement of Cenvat credit on Sugar Cess. The Tribunal noted that the judgment in the Renuka Sugar case had attained finality with the dismissal of the Department's Appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, establishing the eligibility of Cenvat credit on Sugar Cess.

Issue 5 - Consideration of precedents and judicial discipline in adjudication proceedings:
The Tribunal examined various precedents, including decisions by different Benches of the Tribunal allowing credit of Sugar Cess. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of following judicial discipline in adjudication proceedings, referencing relevant instructions issued by the CBIC to avoid unnecessary litigation and ensure adherence to binding precedents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Appellant, directing the refund claim to be allowed based on the established eligibility of Cenvat credit on Sugar Cess. The departmental appeal against the amount sanctioned as refund was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of adhering to judicial discipline and following binding precedents in adjudication proceedings to avoid unnecessary litigation.

← Previous Next →