9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 303 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of pre-deposit - predeposit was made under the head Excise Duty - whether refund was not towards any amount paid under the legacy scheme but related to the pre-deposit? - HELD THAT - When the appellant requested for refund of pre-deposit of ₹ 10.00 Lakhs, nothing prevented the Adjudicating Authority from verifying the same under any other provisions instead of proposing to deny the appellant s claim by quoting Section 130 (2) of the Finance Act, 2019. This assumes relevance since the appellant never made any claim for refund under SVLDRS scheme. Moreover, the purpose of the scheme in question was settlement of dispute per se and hence, such scheme cannot have the effect of depriving a bonafide litigant of its otherwise eligible refund. Both the authorities have misdirected in taking recourse Section 130 (2) ibid, which is, as seriously contended by the learned Consultant, is not applicable - the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant but, without going into the provisions of SVLDR Scheme since, the litigation is settled in so far as the scheme is concerned in respect of the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Refund claim filed by the appellant related to pre-deposit made under the Stay Order of CESTAT. 2. Discrepancy in availing Cenvat Credit on certain services. 3. Denial of refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority citing Section 130 (2) of the Finance Act, 2019. 4. Appeal against rejection of refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals). Issue 1: Refund Claim Related to Pre-Deposit: The appellant filed a refund claim seeking the refund of ?10.00 Lakhs paid as pre-deposit pursuant to the Stay Order of CESTAT. The Adjudicating Authority analyzed the claim and held that the appellant was not entitled to the refund as it was hit by the provisions of Section 130 (2) of the Finance Act, 2019, which barred the refund of any pre-deposit exceeding the amount payable. The Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the appeal, leading to the present appeal before the forum. Issue 2: Cenvat Credit Discrepancy: The appellant had taken Cenvat Credit on various services for duty payment, including services not covered under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A Show Cause Notice was issued to recover ?15,54,198/- for the credit taken on these services. The Order-in-Original confirmed the demand, which was sustained by the first appellate authority. The appellant then deposited ?10.00 Lakhs as pre-deposit as directed by CESTAT. Issue 3: Denial of Refund Claim Under Section 130 (2) of the Finance Act, 2019: The Adjudicating Authority denied the refund claim citing Section 130 (2) of the Finance Act, 2019, which prohibits the refund of any pre-deposit exceeding the payable amount. However, the forum observed that the Revenue had accepted the payment without objection, and denying the refund based on the discrepancy between the dispute related to service tax and the pre-deposit made under "Excise Duty" was unjust. The forum set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order. Issue 4: Appeal Against Rejection of Refund Claim: The forum considered the appellant's contentions and documents on record. It noted that the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) misapplied Section 130 (2) of the Finance Act, 2019. The forum emphasized that the purpose of the SVLDR Scheme was dispute settlement and should not deprive a legitimate litigant of a rightful refund. The forum set aside the impugned order and directed the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of a refund claim related to a pre-deposit made under a Stay Order of CESTAT, discrepancies in availing Cenvat Credit, denial of refund under Section 130 (2) of the Finance Act, 2019, and the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim. The forum set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that the purpose of the SVLDR Scheme was dispute settlement and directed the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order in line with the law, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the appellant.
|
