9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1057 - AT - Central ExciseRefund Cenvat Credit availed on service tax paid on GTA services - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - In the instant case, as found by the adjudicating authority, the Orders-in-Original came to be passed on 30.11.2019 and 30.12.2019, consequent to which the application for refund was filed by the appellant on 31.03.2021. The appellant in response to the show cause notice has taken support from the Order of the Hon ble Apex court in Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No. 3/2020 dated 27.04.2021 whereby, taking judicial notice of the steep rise in COVID-19 Virus cases, the Apex Court has directed that the period(s) of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders. It is also clear directions of the jurisdictional High court, the order of the Larger Bench in the case of M/S VEER OVERSEAS LTD. VERSUS CCE, PANCHKULA 2018 (4) TMI 910 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , relied upon by the first Appellate Authority for denying the refund does not survive. The appeal has to be allowed by way of remand to the file of the adjudicating authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by the assessee-appellant, which was also rejected by the first Appellate Authority. The main issue was whether the rejection of the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was correct. The appellant sought a refund of Cenvat Credit availed on service tax paid on GTA services following certain orders. Show cause notices were issued for recovery of wrongly availed input services credit on outward transportation, which were later taken up for adjudication and dropped. The appellant had reversed a portion of the Cenvat Credit and filed a refund application, which was deemed time-barred by the Range Officer under Section 11B. A show cause notice was issued, and the refund claim was rejected as time-barred by the adjudicating authority. The appellant appealed this rejection, but the First Appellate Authority upheld the decision. The rejection was solely based on the grounds of the claim being time-barred. The appellant cited the Apex Court's order extending limitation periods due to the pandemic and a Madras High Court decision setting aside a similar rejection order, directing a fresh examination of the refund application. The order of the Larger Bench in a previous case, which was relied upon by the First Appellate Authority, was deemed irrelevant in light of the recent court decisions. The appellate tribunal found in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority was instructed to follow the Madras High Court decision and pass a fresh order without considering the question of limitation. The decision was based on the recent court orders and directions, rendering the previous denial of refund invalid. The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced in an open court on 22.09.2022.
|
