9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that duty paid on excisable goods which are inputs alone are eligible and duty paid on capital goods cannot be refunded, is not discussed and is hence not clear. It is also noted that the Original Authority had not disputed the eligibility to CENVAT credit for the capital goods under CCR,2004. The impugned order is hence based on a new ground. A rounded examination of the issue has not been done. The reasons given by the Original Authority and the judgment of M/S. SERVO PACKAGING LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. AND CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY [ 2020 (2) TMI 353 - CESTAT CHENNAI] ] do not form a part of the impugned order into which the OIO has merged. There are no legal groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.1 No cross-objection has been filed by the respondent department. 3. Shri S. Jayanth, learned consultant appeared for the appellant and Shri Harendra Singh Pal, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appeared for the department. 3.1 Shri S. Jayanth, learned Consultant submitted that the appellant imported capital goods under EPCG scheme. As export obligation could not be fulfilled, the appellant paid Customs duties viz., BCD, CVD and SAD along with interest thereon. If the Central Excise levy had been continued in respect of the goods manufactured by the Tax payer, he would lawfully have been entitled to avail the duties of ADC and SAD paid as CENVAT Credit and utilize them for payment of duties of Excise on their finished products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or home consumption by the appellant. The non-consideration of Section 142(3)/143(6) and Section 174(2) (c) of the CGST Act 2017 in proper perspective and the issue of accrued vested interest on the CENVAT credit as stated in Siddharth Enterprises Vs Nodal Officer reported in 2019(29) GSTL 664(Guj) has led to rejection of the appeal with revenue bias. He hence prayed that the Appeals may be allowed and justice rendered. 3.2 The learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) stated on behalf of Revenue that the appellants imported capital goods under the EPCG scheme but they were not able to fulfill the export obligation under the said Notification. Claiming input credit upon failure to meet export obligations would defeat the very purpose of the EP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t eligible to be refunded as discussed above. 9. In the view of the foregoing the impugned order rejecting the refund, need not be interfered with and the appeal fails. 6. CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 includes capital goods in the definition of inputs . The reason and legal provisions why the learned Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that duty paid on excisable goods which are inputs alone are eligible and duty paid on capital goods cannot be refunded, is not discussed and is hence not clear. It is also noted that the Original Authority had not disputed the eligibility to CENVAT credit for the capital goods under CCR,2004. The impugned order is hence based on a new ground. A rounded examination of the issue has not been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
