2024 (12) TMI 941 - HC - Central Excise

Entitlement to claim rebate of Swachh Bharat Cess and refund of CENVAT credit for the same period - rejection of petitioner s revision application on the sole basis that the petitioner had also availed the refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the same period in respect of the input services. HELD THAT - The order impugned in the present petition has been passed by the revisionary authority located within the National Capital Territory of Delhi, therefore, the present petition is maintainable. It is considered apposite to set aside the impugned order and restore the petitioner s revision petition before the revisionary authority to consider it afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's entitlement to claim rebate of Swachh Bharat Cess and refund of CENVAT credit for the same period.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their revision application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The revisionary authority rejected the application based on the petitioner availing refund of CENVAT credit for the same period as the claimed rebate of Swachh Bharat Cess. The Central Government held that simultaneous claims for rebate and refund for the same period are inadmissible. However, the appellate authority's rejection of the petitioner's appeal did not include this ground.

The petitioner's application for rebate was solely for Swachh Bharat Cess, not covered under CENVAT credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed that no CENVAT credit was claimed on the input services for which rebate was sought. The appellate authority considered issues related to services provided, export of services, and documentary evidence but did not address the simultaneous claims issue.

The revisionary authority erroneously assumed that the appeal was rejected due to inadmissible simultaneous claims. The authority also mentioned the nature of services provided by the petitioner and lack of essential documents as grounds for rejection. However, the rejection was solely based on the simultaneous claims issue, which was a misinterpretation.

The respondents raised a jurisdictional objection, stating that the orders in question were passed in Bangalore. However, they did not contest the erroneous reasoning in the impugned order regarding simultaneous claims. The court found the objection regarding jurisdiction meritless as the revisionary authority was in Delhi, making the petition maintainable.

The court set aside the impugned order and directed the revisionary authority to reconsider the petitioner's revision application, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard. The petition was disposed of accordingly, granting relief to the petitioner for a fresh consideration of their claim.