9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 784 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of education cess and higher education cess - restriction in terms of Notification Nos. 19/2008-CE dt. 27.03.2008 and 34/2008-CE dt. 10.06.2008 - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that earlier orders of this Tribunal have been accepted by the Revenue and no appeal has been filed against those orders. In the absence of any challenge to the orders of this Tribunal, the adjudicating authority was duty bound to implement the orders of this Tribunal which they failed to do so. Further, in earlier round of litigation, the orders of this Tribunal were final. The decision relied upon by the ld. AR in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, RAJKOT VERSUS SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD 2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT is not applicable to the facts of this case as in that case, the issue was alive by filing the application for rectification of mistake. There is no such case in these matters, therefore, the said decision cannot be applied here. The adjudicating authority is directed to implement the orders passed by this Tribunal in earlier round of litigation as chart mentioned herein above within 30 days of receipt of this order - Appeal disposed off.
Issues: Refund claim rejection despite Tribunal's order
Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chandigarh addressed the issue of the authorities rejecting the refund claim of the appellants despite the Tribunal's previous orders sanctioning the refund claim. The Tribunal highlighted that in the earlier round of litigation, it had allowed the refund claims for education cess and higher education cess. It was also noted that the appellants were entitled to claim the refund/self-credit of duty paid through PLA. However, the authorities below failed to implement the Tribunal's orders and instead rejected the refund claims. The appellants approached the adjudicating authority seeking the refund, which was partly sanctioned and partly rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) sought recovery of the refund claim earlier sanctioned, leading to the appellants challenging the impugned orders. The Tribunal emphasized that the orders passed by the Tribunal had attained finality as they were not challenged by the Revenue before the higher authority. The appellants argued that the authorities below were duty-bound to implement the Tribunal's orders, and the impugned orders were in violation of judicial discipline. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the Tribunal's decision was based on a case later held per incuriam by the Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal clarified that the decision relied upon by the Revenue was not applicable to the present case, as there was no challenge or application for rectification of mistake in the matters at hand. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority was obligated to implement the orders of the Tribunal, which they failed to do. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have acted without authority of law in seeking recovery of the refund earlier sanctioned. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to implement the Tribunal's previous orders within 30 days of the current order. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the importance of upholding the finality of Tribunal orders and ensuring compliance with judicial decisions.
|
