9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Original Authority in denovo proceedings at para 5.7 of his order dated 15.05.2020, had as per the appellate directions proceeded to examine as to whether the input services are eligible for availment of CENVAT credit and found that the eligible credit worked out to Rs 18,30,182/- as against Rs 19,39,818/- claimed. He only rejected the same for non-submission of documents which he had not specified or called for and which was against the principles of natural justice. No purpose will be served in sending the matter back and the ends of justice would require that the appellant be allowed to succeed in his appeal to this extent. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed for the monetary refund of eligible credit worked o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he refund claim was hit by limitation of time in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the order the appellant approached the Commissioner Appeals who by the impugned order dated 08.12.2021 rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri Deepak Khivansara, Ld. Chartered Accountant appeared for the appellant and Shri P. Saravana Perumal, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent. 3.1 The Ld. Chartered Accountant submitted as follows:- a) there is no requirement under law to file a fresh refund claim within 1 year from the said Appellate Order b) when the initial claim was not time barred their claim in denovo proceedings could not be held to be tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... state that for refund arising as a consequence of an Appellate order, the limitation of time is applicable as per Section 11B(5)(B)(ec) of the Customs Act 1962. 1) 2023 (10) TMI 50 -CESTAT BANGALORE , CYIENT DLM VS CCT, MYSURU,. 2) 2015 (329) ELT 520 (TRI-DEL)-BHARATH METAL WORKS VS CCE, LUDHIANA. 3) 2013 (293) ELT 122 (TRI-AHMD)-JAIN MANUFACTURES VS CCE , RAJKOT. He prayed that the appeal may be ejected. 4. Heard the rival parties and have perused the appeal and connected documents. I find that the issue relates to a question of refund that the appellant feels has been wrongly denied to them, in spite of an appellate order in their favour during the first round of appeal. 5. It is seen that during the first round of appeal, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction. However, the Ld. Original Authority understood the real intention and context of the order and has examined the issue pertaining to the part rejection of the refund claim only. 7. The Ld. Original Authority is also seen to have erred in disposing of the matter in a timely manner, in as much as the denovo direction of the First Appellate Authority dated 29.01.2018 was finally acted upon more than two years later on 15.05.2020. In an attempt to expedite its refund the appellant made the 'mistake' of filing an application for refund for the balance amount of Rs 19,39,819/- vide letter dated 12-03-2020. The Ld. Original Authority relied on the letter and held the claim to be time barred, totally unmindful of the fact that the order in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tween the input and output service exported, and also since the Board's Circular No. 120/1/2010 dated 19.1.2010 does not appear to have been considered let alone applied in the impugned order, I am inclined to agree with the appellant's plea that the original authority has rejected their claim without giving cogent reasons and thus they have a legitimate ground for a fresh consideration of their claims." Faced with such a requirement the appellant could be expected to submit documents as per his belief as to the requirements of law and statute and which he believed he already had submitted resulting in the part sanction of his claim. 10. The Ld. First Appellate Authority in the second round of appeal, understood the clear terms of the rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime is applicable as per Section 11B(5)(B)(ec) of the Customs Act, 1962. Although the argument loses relevance in the light of the non-applicability of the issue, it may also be added that these judgments relate to case where the appellate authorities had issued orders that finally determined the rights and liabilities of the rival parties and not to a case of denovo decision where the refund amount is yet to crystalise after examining the facts and law involved. 13. Having regard to the discussions above the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed for the monetary refund of eligible credit worked out as Rs 18,30,182/- by the Original Authority. The appellant is eligible for consequential relief. The appeal is disposed of acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
