TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of CGST law. As per the order dated 13.7.2012, the appellant falls under the jurisdiction of DC Range Panipat and the DC Range, Panipat is under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of CGST, Panchkula. There are no merit in the ROM application as well as miscellaneous application for modification in the ROM application filed by the Revenue - applications filed by the revenue are dismissed. - E/Misc/60357/2021, E/ROM/60174/2020 & E/EH/60183/2020 in Appeal No. E/60446/2018-Ex - MISC. ORDER No. 60217-60219/2021 - Dated:- 30-12-2021 - HON BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Shri Dinesh Verma, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri H.S. Brar, AR Per: Ashok Jindal The Revenue has also filed application for early hearing of the application for rectification of mistake. As the said application has already listed today for hearing, therefore, the application for early hearing of the application for rectification of mistake has become infructuous. Accordingly, the same dismissed as infructuous. 2. The Revenue has filed an application for rectification of mistake against Final order dated 7.1.2020 on the ground that this Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in its payment after the lapse of statutory period. In the facts of that case, this Court had come to the conclusion that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Revenue in refunding certain amount which included the statutory interest and therefore, directed the Revenue to pay compensation for the same. Here the interest was allowed from the date of deposit as per the section 214 and 244(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 whereas nothing has been provided in the Central Excise Act, 1944/ Service Tax Act, 1994 at the relevant time. Rather the Boards circular no.802/35/2004-CX dated 08.12.2004 has allowed interest after 3 months from the passing of the order of the appellate Authority. 4) As far as the rate of interest on delayed refund is concerned, the Hon ble CESTAT has relied upon the case of UCAL Fuel Systems Pvt. Ltd.2014 (306) ELT 26 passed by single bench of Madras High Court wherein the Hon ble High Court held that the appellant is entitled to claim interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till the payment of amount. As the party has deposited some amount during investigation and some amount on the order of the Hon ble CESTAT and there is no express provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her judgment of Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tata SSL Ltd. passed in 2007 relying on the judgment of ITC Ltd. Further in case of Commr of CGST, Mumbai vs M/s. Juhu Beach Resort Ltd.-2019-TIOL-3596-CESTAT-MUM, the Tribunal has allowed the interest for the pre-deposit made pursuant to the order of Tribunal only on the expiry of 3 months from the date of communication of Order as per the section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944 (before the Amendment of 2014). 8) The rate of interest on delayed refunds under section 35F/35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been notified vide Notification no.24/2014-CE dated 12.8.2014 and is fixed @6% per annum. 9) This Hon ble Tribunal in the case of CCE, Rohtak vs .M/s. Som Flavour Masala Pvt. Ltd., Sonipat, Excise Appeal no.61049 of 2019 vide its Final Order no.60385/2020 dated 2.3.2020 has observed that even if the refund is arising out of order of the Hon ble CESTAT such a refund has to strictly governed as per provisions of section 11B and section 11BB. This Hon ble CESTAT has also observed that party are entitled to interest from the date only after expiry of 3 months from the date of communication of order. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of mistake is not entertainable. Accordingly, the application of rectification of mistake is dismissed. 9. The Revenue has also filed miscellaneous application for modification of the application for rectification of mistake in order dated 07.01.2020 passed by this Tribunal to implead the Commissioner, CGST, Rohtak as the respondent in the final order dated 7.1.2020, the appellant has wrongly impleaded the Commissioner, CGST, CE ST, Panchkula, as the correct respondent should have been the Commissioner of CGST CE, Rohtak. It is the contention of the applicant that the appellant M/s. Riba Textiles Ltd., Sonepat falls under the jurisdiction of Commissionerate of CGST CE, Rohtak after 1.7.2020. 10. It is also prayed that the Commissioner, CGST, Rohtak has not been heard in the matter, therefore, the order dated 7.1.2020 be recalled and the Commissioner of CGST, Rohtak should be heard. It was also submitted that the order dated 7.1.2020 ab initio bad and non-est and prayed that the order be recalled as the order has been passed against the authority of law in the matter and the said order be also recalled. 11. It was also submitted that in the final order No.60413/2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction of Commissioner of CGST, Panchkula with effect from 1.7.2017, therefore, this application filed by this office and in the modification application filed on 6.12.2021, it has been stated that the appellant/respondent to the application fall under CGST, Rohtak with effect from 1.7.2017. 16. Both the above applications were verified by the same Commissioner, CGST, Panchkula. As the contents of both the applications are contrary to each other on this sole ground, the application is required to be rejected. 17. He further submits that the jurisdiction of the appellant/respondent to the application lies with CGST, Panchkula Commissionerate: - (a) that the respondent has applied for registration under Central Excise Act, 1944 in the financial year 1998 for the status of 100% EOU. The respondent/applicant granted shifting of jurisdiction on specific request of the appellant/respondent to the application from CE Range, Rohtak to CE Range, Panipat vide letter dated 1.6.1988, keeping in view the hardship faced by the appellant due to nonavailability of proper communication facilities in the area and also to facilitate expedite export to the unit of the appellant. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... introduction of CGST. Section 142 of CGST Act,2017 explains the jurisdiction. For better appreciation, the section 142 of the Act is extracted below:- Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017 deals with the Miscellaneous transitional provisions . Clause (3), Clause (4) and Clause (6) reads as follows: 3) Every claim for refund filed by any person before, on or after the appointed day, for refund of any amount of CENVAT credit, duty, tax, interest or any other amount paid under the existing law, shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944: Provided that where any claim for refund of CENVAT credit is fully or partially rejected, the amount so rejected shall lapse: Provided further that no refund shall be allowed of any amount of CENVAT credit where the balance of the said amount as on the appointed day has been carried forward under this Act. (4) Every claim for refund filed after the appointed day for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
