9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total demand of Rs.69,98,64,638.00, since deposit has been made to the tune of Rs.65.00 crores, the balance amount of Rs.4,2389,327/- has been erroneously sanctioned in favour of the opposite party, for which the petitioner has approached this Court claiming for re-crediting it in the Cenvat Credit ledger. 5. It appears that the opposite party exported final products on payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 69,98,64,638/- during the period 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017, and claimed rebate, vide application dated 14.08.2017, under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Original Authority, 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of Rs. 4,23,89,327/- sanctioned erroneously by the Original Authority was to be allowed not as a amount of refund but as a reversal entry because 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. A written reply dated 22.05.2021 has been filed by the opposite party. Considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of said Section 142(3). The Government observed that the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in line with the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Thermax Ltd. vs. UOI, 2019 (31) GSTL 60 (Guj.), wherein at paragraph-10 the Gujarat High Court observed as follows:- "10. It is thus eminently clear from the aforesaid observations made in the impugned order that the duty, which was paid by the petitioner, which was otherwise not payable on the exported goods and therefore, rebate of such duty was not admissible in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules. However, 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 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
