9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1275 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - time limitation - availability of credit for the period prior to 01.04.2011 - HELD THAT - The operating portion of the order passed by this Tribunal on the earlier occasion clearly reveals that the entire Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the original adjudicating authority to adjudicate on the point of limitation as well as availability of credit for the period prior to 01.04.2011 apart from examination of documents like filing of return, verification of entries in the CENVAT Credit accounts etc. This being facts on record observation of the Commissioner (Appeals), while confirming the rejection of refund order passed by the adjudicating authority, to the extent that Appellant had sought for refund by filing refund application dated 04.07.2018 on the basis of Order-in-Appeal dated 29.05.2017 that was set aside by this Tribunal on 05.12.2017 is not maintainable, appears to be rational and proper. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Refusal of refund by Commissioner (Appeals) after remand order by Tribunal for de novo adjudication. Analysis: In this case, the Appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that refused a refund previously allowed in the first round of litigation. The Tribunal had set aside the initial order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The Appellant had availed CENVAT Credit on architectural fees and construction costs, which was objected by the Departmental Auditor. The adjudication process resulted in a demand for inadmissible credit, which the Appellant partially reversed under protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted partial relief, holding a portion of the credit admissible. However, the Appellant sought further relief and approached the Tribunal, which remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority. Subsequently, the Appellant filed a refund application seeking the credits allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was refused by the refund sanctioning authority and confirmed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-Thane), Mumbai. During the proceedings, the Appellant's Counsel argued that they had only challenged the denial of a specific portion of the CENVAT Credit and not the confirmation of another portion. The Authorised Representative contended that the Tribunal had set aside the entire order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter for re-adjudication, implying that the interference by the Tribunal was unwarranted. The Tribunal's order clearly indicated that the entire Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the matter was to be re-examined by the original adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the rejection of the refund application based on the earlier order that was set aside by the Tribunal, which was deemed rational and proper. Therefore, the Commissioner's decision to refuse the refund was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-Thane), Mumbai. In conclusion, the Appellant's appeal against the refusal of the refund was dismissed, and the order passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-Thane), Mumbai was confirmed, based on the Tribunal's remand order for de novo adjudication and the subsequent rationality of the Commissioner's decision.
|
