9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause refund/rebate is not admissible and that as per Section 142 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017, every claim for refund filed after the appointed date, i.e. 01.07.2017, shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to the Applicant shall be paid in cash and that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in applying the aforesaid Section 142 (3) since the disputed amount involved herein relates to the re-credit and not to refund in cash and, as such, the same has to lapse. Needless to say, the Commissioner (Appeals) while considering the case also taken into consideration the provisions contained under Section 142 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 and held that since the application for rebate was fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, vide Order-in-Original dated 10.10.2017 sanctioned the entire amount as rebate. The aforesaid Order-in-Original dated 10.10.2017 was reviewed by the petitioner department on the ground that duty was paid on CIF value basis instead of the FOB value basis and, therefore, the rebate should be sanctioned in cash only to the extent of duty payable on FOB value basis whereas excess duty paid over and above the FOB value basis should be refunded in the manner it was paid, i.e., by re-crediting in the Cenvat Credit Account. In the appeal filed by the petitioner department, consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 30.10.2018, held that the amount of Rs.4,23,89,327/- was erroneously sanctioned to the opposite party in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-credit and not to refund in cash and, as such, the same has to lapse. A written reply dated 22.05.2021 has been filed by the opposite party. Considering all such facts, the Revisional Authority passed the following order: The Commissioner (Appeals) has also in the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.10.2018 dearly held 8 that refund of duty of Rs. 4,23,89,327/- on Overseas freight value of Rs.33,91,14,613/- has been erroneously sanctioned to the respondent in cash instead of re-crediting to their CENVAT Account, I hold that the Adjudicating Authority has sanctioned the rebate of Rs. 4,23,89,327/- beyond the prescribed law. Therefore, I hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Thus, it was the clear contention of the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty, which was paid by the petitioner is held to be treated as voluntary deposit. As per Section 142(3) of the GST Act, every claim for the refund filed by any person before, on or after the appointed day i.e. 01.07.2017 for refund of any amount of CENVAT credit, duty, tax, interest or any other amount paid under the existing law, should be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to such person should be paid in cash. We are of the considered opinion that in view of this clear provision, the respondent No.2 ought to have directed the sanctioning Authority to refund the amount of the duty refundable to the petitioner in cash instead of credit in CENVAT Account. 7. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
