9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all be paid together with accumulated interest in accordance with law within four weeks of this order being uploaded. Petition disposed off. - K. R. SHRIRAM JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Sriram Sridharan. For the Respondents : Mr Karan Adik a/w Ms Maya Majumdar for Respondents in WP/729/2021 Ms Maya Majumdar in WP/1228/2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER K. R. SHRIRAM J.) 1. Since the pleadings are completed, we decided to dispose the petition at the admission stage itself. Therefore, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. Substantial prayers sought in the above petitions are prayer clauses (a) and (b), which read as under: 3. In both these petitions, the facts are identical and for convenience we adopt the facts in Writ Petition No. 729 of 2021. WRIT PETITION NO. 729 OF 2021 a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 7.9.2018 (Exhibit-A) passed by Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (5) (6) 1 90 OIO No. 1981/11-12/DC (Rebate) / Raigad dated 31.1.2012 3,56,46,104 71,05,078 2,85,41,026 2 81 OIO No. 2112/11-12/DC (Rebate) / Raigad dated 15.2.2012 2,55,05,401 97,35,858 1,57,69,543 3 141 OIO No. 1832/12-13/DC (Rebate) / Raigad dated 15.10.2012 5,37,82,461 1,74,27,997 3,63,54,464 4 96 OIO No. 2413/12-13/DC (Rebate) / Raigad dated 21.12.2012 3,50,95,693 1,09,48,992 2,41,46,701 Total 15,00,29,659 4,52,17,925 10,48,11,737 5. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and export of medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. Admittedly, petitioner has in its CENVAT credit account an amount of Rs. 10,48,11,734/-. Petitioner filed an application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2, by an order dated 5th October 2018 held as under: Government holds that any amount paid in excess of duty liability on one's own volition cannot be treated as duty and has to be treated as voluntary deposit with the Government, which is required to be returned in the manner in which it was paid as the said amount cannot be retained by the Government. Government therefore, holds that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cidence has not been passed on and realized by the company from the overseas buyer and the said fact is ascertained and corroborated alongside the financial statements of the year 2017-18. In this regard I also take on record a certificate dated 05.11.2018 issued by Chartered Accountant Mr. Vishal Batra thereby giving the undertaking that the amount of duty claimed as refund has been shown as Central Excise Duty/ Service tax receivable under the heading current assets in the balance sheet for the financial year 2017-18 of the company. In view of the above discussion and findings, I pass the following order: I hereby re-credit an amount of Rs. 10,48,11,734/- (Rupees Ten Crores Forty Eight Lakhs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Four Only) to M/s Combiotic Global Caplet Pvt Ltd, under the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and in view of above Government Order. 7 Petitioner challenged these orders before respondent No. 3, who by order dated 16th July 2020 rejected petitioner s challenge. The relevant paragraph of the order dated 16th July 2020, which is also impugned in this petition, reads as under: 6.4 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the adjudicating authority was bound to the order of the Revision Authority, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Further, I find that Company has contended that they should be refund the re-credit amount in cash under Section 142 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017. I find that since the impugned Revision Order attains finality, Company's this claim cannot be entertained. I find that Revision Authority's order has to be implemented in letter and spirit. Thus, I find that the appeal filed by the Company is unsustainable. 8. It is these orders which are impugned in this petition and the stand taken by petitioner is that Section 142 (3) of the Central Goods And Services Tax Act 2017 (the Act) clearly says, w.e.f 1st July 2017, in view of the effect of change in the regime, i.e., when the GST regime was introduced, any refund that was payable to petitioner has to be paid in cash. Mr. Sridharan submitted that since the CENVAT regime has come to an end, credit of amount payable to petitioner to the CENVAT account would make no sense because petitioner will not get the money or credit thereof under the GST regime. Mr. Sridharan states since the government cannot retain any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
