2025 (5) TMI 1015 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of Central Value Added Tax (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) under the transitional provisions of the CGST Act 2017 in view of the fact of non-availability of cenvat credit post 01.07.2017 - HELD THAT - The appellant was eligible to take cenvat credit of CVD and SAD paid by them. However since the payments were made after 01.07.2017 they were not able to take cenvat credit of the same. It is found that the transitional provisions under Section 142 of CGST Act 2017 have made provisions for such contingencies. Sub-section (3) of Section 142 ibid provides for cash refund of such cenvat credit subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944. On going through the provisions of sub-section (2) it is clear that the said sub-section (2) deals with unjust enrichment. It provides that if the incidence of tax has been borne by the appellant then the appellant is eligible for refund and if the incidence of such tax is passed on by the appellant to any other person then such amount shall be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund. In the present case the appellant has paid CVD and SAD and therefore the incidence is not passed on to anybody and therefore they are fulfilling the requirement of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944. Thus the appellant is eligible for cash refund of Rs.12, 84, 696/- Rs.6, 28, 923/- and Rs.2, 25, 780/-. Conclusion - The appellant has paid CVD and SAD and therefore the incidence is not passed on to anybody and therefore they are fulfilling the requirement of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944. Appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the appellant, having paid Central Value Added Tax (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) after 01.07.2017, is eligible for refund of such duties under the transitional provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, despite the non-availability of cenvat credit post that date.

- Whether the appellant's refund claims were validly rejected without issuance of show cause notices in two of the three cases.

- Whether the conditions under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, particularly regarding unjust enrichment, are satisfied by the appellant to entitle them to refund.

- The applicability and interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017, in relation to refund claims of cenvat credit paid under the earlier law but not availed due to the transition to GST regime.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Eligibility for Refund of CVD and SAD Paid Post 01.07.2017 under Transitional Provisions

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The CGST Act, 2017 introduced on 01.07.2017, replaced earlier indirect tax laws including the Central Excise Act and Finance Act provisions relating to CVD and SAD. Section 142 of the CGST Act contains transitional provisions dealing with credits and refunds relating to taxes paid under the earlier regime. Specifically, sub-section (3) of Section 142 provides that any claim for refund of cenvat credit paid under the existing law but not availed before the appointed date shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the earlier law, and such amounts shall be refunded in cash.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the appellant had paid CVD and SAD after 01.07.2017, and thus was unable to avail cenvat credit under the new GST regime. The transitional provision under Section 142(3) was designed to address such situations by allowing refund of these credits in cash, subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's payment records showed that CVD and SAD were paid during May 2018 to March 2020 across three refund applications. The appellant was otherwise eligible to take cenvat credit had the payment been made before 01.07.2017.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied Section 142(3) of the CGST Act and found that the appellant's claim for refund was maintainable as the payments were made post the GST transition date, and the law allowed refund in cash of such credits.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the appellant was not eligible for refund due to non-fulfillment of export obligations and conditions under Section 11B(2). The Court noted these objections but addressed them under the unjust enrichment analysis (Issue 3).

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to claim refund of CVD and SAD paid post 01.07.2017 under the transitional provisions of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act.

Issue 2: Validity of Rejection of Refund Claims Without Show Cause Notice

Relevant Legal Framework: Principles of natural justice require that before rejecting a refund claim, the authority should issue a show cause notice to the claimant to provide an opportunity to be heard.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Two of the refund applications were rejected through orders-in-original without issuance of any show cause notice. The Court found this procedural lapse significant as it deprived the appellant of the opportunity to respond to the proposed rejection.

Key Evidence: The record showed no show cause notices issued prior to rejection orders dated 24.01.2020 and 06.02.2020, whereas in the third case, a show cause notice was issued and adjudicated.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the absence of show cause notices rendered the rejection orders unsustainable in law for those two refund claims.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not specifically justify the non-issuance of show cause notices. The Court emphasized adherence to procedural fairness.

Conclusion: The rejection of refund claims without prior show cause notice was invalid, necessitating setting aside of such orders.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 11B(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Unjust Enrichment

Relevant Legal Framework: Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, provides that refund shall not be allowed if the incidence of tax has been passed on to any other person, constituting unjust enrichment. Only where the tax incidence is borne by the claimant is refund permissible.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court analyzed whether the appellant had borne the incidence of CVD and SAD or had passed it on to others. It was found that the appellant had paid these duties and there was no evidence that the tax incidence was passed on to any other person.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's submissions and records indicated direct payment of duties without passing on the tax burden.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the unjust enrichment test and concluded that the appellant fulfilled the requirement under Section 11B(2), entitling them to refund.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that conditions under proviso clauses (a) to (f) of Section 11B(2) were not met. The Court, however, focused on the fundamental principle of incidence of tax and found no evidence of passing on the incidence, thus rejecting the Revenue's contention.

Conclusion: The appellant was not unjustly enriched and was eligible for refund under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "Sub-section (3) of Section 142 [of the CGST Act] provides for cash refund of such cenvat credit subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944."

- "On going through the provisions of sub-section (2), it is clear that the said sub-section (2) deals with unjust enrichment. It provides that if the incidence of tax has been borne by the appellant, then the appellant is eligible for refund and if the incidence of such tax is passed on by the appellant to any other person, then such amount shall be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund."

- "In the present case the appellant has paid CVD and SAD and, therefore, the incidence is not passed on to anybody and, therefore, they are fulfilling the requirement of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944."

- The Court set aside all impugned orders rejecting the refund claims and allowed the appeals, holding the appellant entitled to a cash refund of Rs.12,84,696/-, Rs.6,28,923/- and Rs.2,25,780/- respectively.