9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of few refunds, corrigendum has been issued and in respect of few refunds, no corrigendum has been issued. With respect to refund claims where corrigendum is issued, I direct the concerned authorities to accept the copies of refund applications as filed before the LTU and decide the claim of the appellant after following the due process of law including the principles of natural justice - with respect to refund claims where no corrigendum is issued, it is directed that the GST South Commissionerate Bangalore to accept the copies of refund applications as filed before the LTU and dispose of the refund claims after following the due process including the principles of natural justice. Appeal disposed off by way of remand. - Central Excise Appeal No. 20738 of 2019, 20739 of 2019 - Final Order No. 20063-20064/2020 - Dated:- 27-1-2020 - HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Madhup Sharan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG Appellants have filed these two appeals against the common impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aims of excess duty paid at the time of de-bonding of the goods. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 13.2.2013 was issued to the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner, LTU having jurisdiction over all the STPI units of the appellant proposing to reject the refund claims. Appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice. Before passing of Order-in-Original, appellant opted out of LTU scheme with effect from April 1, 2014 as permitted by the order of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka dated April 24, 2013 against Writ Petition No.17293/2013. Subsequent to exit from LTU, all the refund applications were transferred to the respective jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over respective licenses. Thereafter, a corrigendum dated July 2, 2014 to the show-cause notice which sought to change the authority to whom the reply to the show-cause notice was ought to have been filed from Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, LTU, Banashankari-III Stage, Bangalore to Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Commissionerate without providing any bifurcation . Subsequently, another corrigendum was also issued which sought to chang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd.: 2007 (213) ELT 487 (SC) CCE, Bhubaneshwar-I vs. Champdancy Industries LTd.: 2009 (241) ELT 481 (SC) CCE, Nagpur vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.: 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC) Akzo Nobel Coatings India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2013-TIOL-262-CESTAT-BANG. CST vs. AXA Business Service Pvt. Ltd.: 2014 (6) TMI 832-CESTAT-Bangalore 4.1 He further submitted that the appellant cannot be put to worse situation on account of mere procedural lapse regarding lack of jurisdiction. As far as demand of refund of ₹ 9,90,652/- for verification by the original authority is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the Order-in-Original has considered the claim of the appellant and allowed the refund of ₹ 9,90,652/- by passing a detailed order by giving the following reasons. a. The benefits of deemed export benefits extended under Chapter 8 of the FTP is for the supplies made to the EOU for the intended purposes and the benefits is unconditional. These benefits are not available if the said goods are not used for the intended purposes a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ospective since it expands the conditions of the 2001 Circular. For this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. vs. CCE, Guntur: 2007-TIOL-09-SC-CX which held that a beneficial Circular has to be applied retrospectively while oppressive circular have to be applied prospectively. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that when the appellant opted out from LTU, the LTU does not have power to decide the refund claims of the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant is required to file refund claim to various jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner where the manufacturing unit is established. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that as far as rejection of refund of ₹ 21,54,016/- is concerned, the said refund has only been rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It is pertinent to note that appellant filed seven (7) refund claimed on 28.1.2013 with the Deputy Commissioner, LTU, Bangalore because at that time LTU Bangalore had the jurisdiction to settle all the refund claims of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
