Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (8) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3.2002 as amended by Notification No.23/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004. The appellant paid duty amounting to Rs.10,39,858/- under protest and the duty was paid through cenvat credit. Subsequently vide Order-in-Original No.5/2007-LTU dated 12.2.2007, the above demand was set aside. The appellant based on the above order, took suo moto cenvat credit instead of filing a refund claim which was not correct in accordance with the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, show-cause notice dated 17.8.2009 was issued demanding the irregularly availed credit along with interest. The original authority vide order in Order-in-Original No.005/2010-LTU dated 02.02.2010 confirmed the duty amount of Rs.10,39,858/- along with interest and also impo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation or mis-statement on the part of the appellant. Since duty was paid under protest, their claim could have been made at any given point of time. She further submitted that the issue as to whether suo moto credit is eligible was the contentious issue, which was referred to Larger Bench. This itself proves that when there is no clear-cut decision on the issue, the question of suppression does not arise and relying on the decision in the case of Vodafone Essar South Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax: 2020 (43) GSTL (249) (Tri.-Bang.), it is submitted that the question of suppression does not arise. 3. The Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submitted that since the original reversal of credit was against payment of du .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... led Section 11B ibid or similar provision merely gives legislative recognition to this doctrine that however does not mean that in absence of statutory provision a person can claim or retain undue benefit.............". Further, it is submitted that the Larger Bench in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE (Appeals), Mumbai-I: 2008 (229) ELT 364 (Tri-LB), it was clearly held that suo moto credit/refund cannot be taken. 3.2 With regard to limitation, it is submitted that the fact of suo moto availment of credit was not intimated to the department and it came to their knowledge only during audit and the said act of the appellant amounts to suppression with intention to avail irregular cenvat credit, hence, the demand confirmed by the autho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act of 1944 reads as under: "11B: Claim for refund of duty. - (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise before the expiry of one year from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in Section 12A) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty of excise in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by him and the incidence of such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person." From the above provisions, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng on suppression or invoking of proviso to Section 11A for demanding duty beyond the normal period. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order does not deal with suppression nor has given any reasons to invoke proviso to Section 11A except for confirming the demand along with interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC. In view of the above, the demand being beyond the normal period cannot be sustained. The Tribunal in the case of Vodafone Essar South Ltd. (supra) has observed as follows: "7. The Tribunal in the said decision has also followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. MTR Food Ltd. [2012 (282) E.L.T. 196] wherein it has been held that if the returns were filed properly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates