9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .17.04.2024 is contradictory to the earlier OIA dt.27.01.2023 in the same matter. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Importer/Respondent had imported certain automotive parts on which, inter alia, applicable Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS) was initially debited through MEIS scrips. However, subsequently, in terms of Circular dt.10.01.2020, the Importer/Respondent paid an amount of Rs.1,20,201/- in cash. Since they had paid this amount in cash, they subsequently sought refund of the said amount, claiming that since the said amount was already paid through MEIS scrips, this amounts to double payment. The original refund sanctioning authority granted the said refund. However, the Department, on review, challenged the said order by fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund claim as time barred was not appealed against by the Importer/Respondent and therefore, it has attained finality. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in again readjudicating the same by way of fresh order and allowing the benefit to the Importer/Respondent. 4. Learned AR has relied on the following case laws in support of his submission that Importer/Respondent can now not come in Appeal for similar matter, which was already decided and has attained finality by again agitating the issue on merit:- a) CC (AIR), Meenambakkam, Chennai Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd [2019 (369) ELT 289 (Mad.)] b) Euro Ceramics Ltd Vs UOI [2017 (354) ELT 23 (Guj.)] c) Vamshi Rubber Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad-III [2015 (322) ELT 249 (AP)] 5. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vious that in the first instance, the refund claim was filed beyond the statutory time limit of one year and therefore, the Original Authority should have examined the claim within the four walls of the statutory provisions. In subsequent proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into account the interpretation of certain exclusion of period due to COVID etc., in terms of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of certain provisions) Ordinance, 2020 and came to the conclusion that even after allowing this, the original statutory time limit would not have been adhered and therefore, the refund was required to be rejected as time barred. In the consequential proceedings, though the department has relied on the logic taken by the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
