9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Court below have erred in observing in the impugned order, that without producing proper records of duty paid invoices etc. in manufacture of dutiable final product, refund cannot be given. It is also found that refund of CVD and SAD in question is allowable, as credit is no longer available under the GST regime, which was however available under the erstwhile regime of Central Excise prior to 30.06.2017. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to refund under the provisions of Section 142(3) and (6) of the CGST Act. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner is directed to grant refunds to the appellant of the amount of SAD CVD as reflected in the show causes notices and also in the orders-in-appeal - appeal allowed - decided in favor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Director General of Foreign Trade, Mumbai issued a deficiency letter dated 15.03.2016 under which the Appellant was informed that they have made excess import under the said Advance Licence. Under serial number 5 of the said letter dated 15.03.2016, the Appellant was directly to deposit the duty foregone on such excess import of raw material along with penalty. 2.4 Accordingly, the Appellant regularised the advance licence by depositing the BCD, CVD and SAD foregone, by making the necessary payments on 30.08.2018 (which relates to Excise Appeal No. E/50808/2020 and E/50809/220) and on 14.06.2018 (which relates to Excise Appeal No. E/50810/2020). 2.5 That the said payment of CVD + SAD was Cenvatable to the Appellant. However, since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.09.2019 relates to Excise Appeal E/50809/2020 and Show cause notice F. No. V(84)18/08/CGSTD-B/2019/1719 dated 11.09.2019 relates to Excise Appeal E/50808/2020]. 2.7 That respective Order-in-Originals rejected the refund claim of the Appellant. [Order-in-Original No. 13/2019/R-EX(REF-Cons)-AC dated 08.11.2019 relates to Excise Appeal E/50808/2020, Order-in-Original No. 14/2019/R-EX(REF-Cons)-AC dated 08.11.2019 relates to Excise Appeal E/50809/2020 and Order-in-Original No. 12/2019/R-EX(REF-Cons)-AC dated 11.09.2019 relates to Excise Appeal E/50810/2020]. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to uphold the order of rejection of the refund, observing that cenvat credit is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same have been cleared on payment of duty. Learned Counsel also states that these evidences were produced and demonstrated before the Court below but the Court below has overlooked these evidences and have drawn erroneous conclusion. 5.1 Learned Counsel further relies on the precedent ruling of this Tribunal in Flexi Caps and Polymers Pvt. Ltd., vs. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Indore -2021 (9) TMI 917-CESTAT, New Delhi, wherein also pursuant to demand of service tax under reverse charge mechanism after 30.06.2017, for transaction related prior to the said date (01.07.17), this Tribunal held that as the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, which is not now available due to GST regime, is entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
