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

2025 (4) TMI 567

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al dated 06.09.2023. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that there are set principles to adjudicate any matter of refund application filed before the Adjudicating Authorities while disposing the case. However, from the facts and chronology of events, it is seen and observed that in no time, the appellant was given an opportunity of being heard and there was clear violation of natural justice granted under the law. Appellant was not given an opportunity of personal hearing in the matter to record his submission as to question of jurisdiction. No any written clarification or clear provision to why and how Central Tax Authorities lies jurisdiction to process the refund claim filed by the appellant. Learned Advocate for the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sued Deficiency Memo dated 24.12.2020 observing some deficiencies in the refund claim filed. In reply, the appellant fixed some of the procedure aspect and observed under deficiency memo dated 21.12.2020 and requested the Central Tax Authorities to process the refund claim. There was no development in claim process for some time. However, on 22.09.2021, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Gachibowli GST Division, Hyderabad, vide letter dated 22.09.2021 returned the refund filed quoting that the paid duties are having customs component in it. Hence, refund claim should have been filed before Jurisdictional Customs Authorities. On receipt of communication from Central Tax, Gachibowli Division, the appellant approached Jurisdictional Custo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peal filed by the appellant on the ground of non-maintainability without examining the merits of the issue. 4. Learned AR for the Department reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 6. Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Gachibowli Division, Hyderabad, by letter dated 06.09.2023 impugned order (order-in-original) informed the applicant as follows: "Please refer to your letter dated 18.05.2023 on the above subject. On perusal of the records of this office, it is noticed that your earlier claim on the same subject matter and for the same amount was returned for want of jurisdiction (copy of letter C.No. IV/16/R/63/2020-Gach (Refunds) dated 22.09.2021 is enclosed for reference .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bject matter and for the same amount was returned for want of Jurisdiction. 8. Then appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6 & 8 states as follows: "6. The appellants claimed that on receipt of the said communication from the respondent, they approached the jurisdictional Customs Authorities, but they were not allowed to file refund claim stating that CVD and SAD duties are not Customs components, but clearly part of CENVAT duty. Thereafter, the appellants re-submitted the refund claim to the respondent's office vide Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) dated 01.02.2022. The appellants have also submitted a letter dated 18.05.2023 to the respondent requesting to process their re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d SAD duties are not customs components but clearly part of Cenvat duty". It is also important that no any opportunity of hearing has been given by the Adjudicating Authority. It is a Statutory procedure that no application for a refund should be rejected without giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1438/2004 (PG 67) M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that natural justice is another name for common sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common sense liberal way. J .....

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