9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of interest before issuance of show cause notice. On pointing out by the audit, subsequently show cause notice was issued for denial of credit of Rs. 48 lakhs approximately. The Additional Commissioner adjudicated the show cause notice confirming the demand of Rs. 5,72,217/- and demanded interest of Rs. 21,634/-. Therefore, there was an excess debit of cenvat credit as well as interest attributed to the said excess amount for which the refund claim was filed. The adjudicating authority has sanctioned the refund. The Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground of time bar for the reason that the refund was filed on 17.2.2016 i.e. after one year from the reversal of credit made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (ec) of Section 11B(5)(B), according to which the refund is maintainable if it becomes refundable consequent the judgment, decree, order or direction of appellate authority, appellate tribunal or any court. In such case, the date of judgment, decree, order or direction should be the relevant date. He submits that in the present case, the refund is consequent to the order-in-original passed by the Additional Commissioner who does not fall under any authority such as appellate authority, appellate tribunal or any court. Therefore, the present refund has not become payable in terms of clause (ec) of Section 11B(5)(B). He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. - 2005 (191) ELT 549 (Tri.-Chennai); (ii) USV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led. Therefore, irrespective of any authority, the matter is pending and subsequently the dispute is settled and refund has arisen. It will be covered by clause (ec). As regards the judgment relied upon by the learned AR in the case of USV Ltd. (supra), I find that the facts of that case is entirely different from the facts of the present case as in the present case refund arises from the adjudication order whereas in the USV Ltd.'s case, there was no lis in regard to the amount paid in excess by the assessee. Therefore, the ratio of this judgment is not applicable. The decision of Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. (supra) is also not applicable for the reason that the facts in the said case are that the duty was not paid under protest and there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
