9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance license No. 0810119602 dated 20.03.2013 by DGFT, Ahmedabad under para 2.02 of Foreign Trade Policy (handbook 2015-2020) for import of certain inputs duty free whereas against the said advance license, the appellant had imported Low Density Polyehylene Grade BB 120. To fulfil the export obligation of the said advance license, the appellant had paid the applicable customs duties, namely counter availing duty and special additional duty with interest on imported goods. The amount of CVD and SAD total Rs. 1,16,02,346/- paid by the appellant was admissible to them as a Cenvat credit under erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 however from 01.07.2017, GST regime came into effect and the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 seized to exist and hence they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon the decision of Tribunal Chennai in the case of Sarvo Packaging Ltd. 2020 (373) ELT 550 (Tri. Chennai). However learned Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the order has not discussed the above said cases as to why the above said decision relied upon by the adjudicating authority is not applicable in the present case. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not reasoned, legal, proper and bad in law. He further submits that all the decisions which were relied upon by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) have been accepted by the department only on the low monetary ground, hence it cannot be said that all these cases have attained finality. He submits that as per the above grounds of appeal, the order of Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by both the sides and perused the records. 5. We find that the department sought to deny the refund of CVD and SAD paid by the appellant only on the ground that at the time of payment of CVD and SAD there was no provision of availing the Cenvat credit, therefore, it was alleged that the appellant was not in position to avail the Cenvat credit, therefore consequently even refund of the amount which is not cenvatable could not have been claimed. We find that the appellant have paid the CVD and SAD for the period prior to 01.07.2017 even though the payment was made subsequent to 01.07.2017. Therefore, since the duty is paid by the appellant are for the period when the Cenvat credit Rules was existing, the appellant were entitled for Cenvat cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra Polyplast India Private Limited (supra) after relying upon many other decision came to the conclusion that the appellant are entitled for the refund under Section 142(3) of CGST Act, therefore, the decision of Sarvo Packaging Limited stand departed. Even if the precedent value of the judgment is considered, it is settled law that the later decision is always better than the earlier one on the principle of 'later is better' accordingly, the judgment of Sri Chakra Polyplast India Private Limited prevails over the decision of Sarvo Packaging Limited. We also make it clear that we being a Division Bench have already given an independent finding hereinabove which gets reinforced by the later judgments of this Tribunal. Accordingly, we do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
