9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) has rejected the appeal filed by appellant against the Order-in-Original No. R/257/2017 dated 20.11.2017 of Assistant Commissioner Central Tax Division - I Satara holding as follows: "I reject the refund claim for the quarters of July 2016 to September, 2016, October to December, 2016 & January 2017 to March 2017 for an amount of Rs. 22,41,558/-, Rs. 24,29,912/- & Rs. 31,46,698/- respectively filed on 29.05.2017 & 16.06.2017 by Alumatic Cans Pvt Ltd, Gat No 1083, 1084, 1085, 1088 Kesurdi Phata, Pargaon Khandala, Dist Satara. Accordingly, the SCNs dated 18.07.2017 and 21.07.2017 stand disposed off." 2.1 Appellant had filed refund applications on 29.05.2017 & 16.06.2017 as detailed in table below in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourse of hearing on appeal we find that the issue is no longer res integra and has been adjudicated by this tribunal in following decisions: * Trimurti Plast Containers Pvt. Ltd. [2018-TIOL-928-CESTAT-MUM] * Arrow Engineers [2018-TIOL-628-CESTAT-MUM] * Wave Mechanics Pvt Ltd [2019-TIOL-3178-CESTAT-BANG] * Unity Pharma Chem [2019-TIOL-3244-CESTAT-MUM] 4.2 In all the above referred decisions tribunal has after taking the note of Explanation (1A) inserted in Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 vide notification No 06/2015-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2015, have held that refund in terms of the Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is admissible only in respect of the goods cleared for physical exports by the applicant, and is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex., Goa Versus Dempo Engineering Works Ltd. [2015 (319) ELT 349 (SC) para 3] Tribunal cannot allow an appeal on new grounds when the same were neither raised in reply to the show cause notice nor were argued before the Adjudicating Authority. 6.5 In the case of Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India [2017 (354) E.L.T. 30 (Guj.)], Hon'ble Gujarat High Court after referring various case laws, held that no relief can be granted which is not claimed in the appeal." 4.6 We do not find any merits in the arguments advanced by the Authorized Representative. It is requirement in law for claiming the refund under Rule 5, the claimant has to make a debit of the amount claimed as refund from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h they had filed the refund claims and the said amount will not lapse as per Section 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017." 4.7 Something which is direct consequence of the rejection of the refund claim under Rule 5, cannot be said to be a no plea or a ground as learned Authorized Representative has sought to make out. Since the condition of debit of the amount claimed as refund under Rule 5, is a condition prior to filing the refund claim, the consequence of rejection will be the restoration of credit which was debited by the applicant. This restoration cannot be considered as new ground and the decisions referred by the learned Authorized Representative are distinguishable for this reason. 5.1 In view of our discus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
