9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 928 - HC - Service TaxMaintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - High Court or Supreme Court - issues relating to the rate of duty and valuation of goods - entitlement to cash refund in light of the proviso to Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT - The scope of the proviso to Section 142 (6) (a) warrants serious consideration. Under this proviso once any amount of CENVAT credit as on the appointed date had been carried forward under the CGST Act 2017 at least prima facie there was an embargo on cash refunds. The Tribunal s Original Order dated 24 January 2025 had not at least specifically ordered any cash refund. Only consequential relief was granted without specifying what this consequential relief would be. The relief of cash refund was granted only by the order dated 06 May 2025 disposing of Misc. Application No. 85710 of 2025 and by purportedly exercising the powers under Rule 41 of the 1982 Rules. The prejudice to the Revenue by the refusal of some protection for a limited period would far outweigh the prejudice to the Respondent. If ultimately the Respondent is found eligible for the relief now granted by the CESTAT there should be no serious difficulty in recovering this amount from the Revenue. However if any cash refunds are granted to the Respondent and the Revenue succeeds in its Appeal/s the position may not be as simple since it is the Respondent s case that it is not undertaking any active business or has closed down its factories. This is a fit case that the CESTAT s direction for cash refund of Rs.256.45 Crores should be stayed for a period of eight weeks from the date of uploading of this order. Accordingly we order such stay for a period of eight weeks from the date of uploading of this order. This Petition and the Appeal are disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the Petitioner/Appellant to prefer Appeal/s before the Hon ble Supreme Court by invoking the provisions of Section 35-G and 35-L of the Central Excise Act 1944 within eight weeks from the date of uploading of this order. Conclusion - i) The Appeal and Writ Petition are not maintainable before the High Court and must be filed before the Supreme Court. ii) The direction for cash refund potentially violates the proviso to Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act and requires appellate scrutiny. iii) The direction for cash refund is stayed for eight weeks pending appeal before the Supreme Court. Petition and appeal disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Maintainability of the Appeal and Writ Petition before the High Court Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 allows appeals to the High Court from orders passed by the CESTAT, except where the order relates to questions involving the rate of duty or valuation of goods. Section 35-L provides that such orders involving rate or valuation questions are appealable only before the Supreme Court. The Court referred to precedents including decisions in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V vs Reliance Media Works Ltd and BCCI vs Commissioner of Service Tax, which emphasize the strict demarcation of appellate jurisdiction between the High Court and Supreme Court under these provisions. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined the CESTAT's Final Order dated 24 January 2025 and noted that it explicitly discusses issues of valuation and taxability, which are central to the dispute. The Appeal memo also raised grounds relating to valuation and taxability. Accordingly, the Court held that the appeal is not maintainable before the High Court under Section 35-G but must be instituted before the Supreme Court under Section 35-L. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Respondent argued for non-maintainability of both the Appeal and the Writ Petition before the High Court, relying on the statutory scheme and relevant precedents. The Petitioner/Appellant contended for maintainability, but the Court found the statutory provisions and facts favor the Respondent's position. Conclusion: The Appeal challenging the CESTAT's Final Order dated 24 January 2025 is not maintainable before the High Court and must be filed before the Supreme Court. Issue 2: Nature and Appealability of the CESTAT's Order dated 06 May 2025 under Rule 41 of the 1982 Rules Relevant Legal Framework: Rule 41 of the 1982 Rules empowers the CESTAT to issue orders or directions necessary to give effect to its orders or prevent abuse of process. The Court considered whether such an order is a separate order appealable before the High Court or Supreme Court. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the 06 May 2025 order supplements, interprets, or aids in the implementation of the original CESTAT order dated 24 January 2025. The decisions cited by the Respondent indicate that such orders are appealable before the Supreme Court under Section 35-L, not before the High Court under Section 35-G. The Court emphasized the phrase "among other things" in Sections 35-G and 35-L, which broadens the scope of orders appealable before the Supreme Court. Competing Arguments: The Petitioner/Appellant argued that the 06 May 2025 order was a separate order without jurisdiction, thus challengeable by Writ Petition before the High Court. The Respondent contended it is part of the original order and appealable only before the Supreme Court. Conclusion: The order dated 06 May 2025 is effectively part of the original order and appealable only before the Supreme Court. Issue 3: Legality of the CESTAT's Direction for Cash Refund of Rs. 256.45 Crores in Light of Proviso to Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 Relevant Legal Framework: Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 contains a proviso that prohibits cash refunds of CENVAT credit amounts that were carried forward under the CGST Act as on the appointed date (1 July 2017). The Petitioner/Appellant contended that since the Respondent had carried forward CENVAT credit on the appointed date, the proviso bars any cash refund. Court's Reasoning and Findings: The Court acknowledged the Petitioner/Appellant's submission that the reversal of credit after nearly seven years was an attempt to circumvent the statutory embargo on cash refunds. The Court noted that the original CESTAT order did not specifically order a cash refund; the cash refund direction was granted only by the 06 May 2025 order, which was passed purportedly under Rule 41. The Court recognized the prima facie force of the proviso to Section 142(6)(a) and the potential jurisdictional infirmity in granting the cash refund. Competing Arguments: The Respondent disputed the Petitioner/Appellant's position but the Court refrained from deciding the merits, keeping all contentions open. Conclusion: The direction for cash refund raises serious legal questions under the CGST Act proviso and requires further consideration in appeal. Issue 4: Exercise of Discretionary Jurisdiction under Article 226 to Entertain the Writ Petition Court's Reasoning: The Court observed that jurisdiction under Article 226 is plenary and discretionary but should not be exercised to entertain partial or truncated proceedings when a complete remedy exists before the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that partial interference with the CESTAT's orders would not be in the interest of justice and could render the reliefs granted by the Tribunal meaningless. Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the Writ Petition challenging the 06 May 2025 order. Issue 5: Grant of Stay on the CESTAT's Direction for Cash Refund Pending Appeal Court's Reasoning: Considering the prima facie legal embargo on cash refunds under the CGST Act proviso and the potential irreversibility if the refund is paid (especially given the Respondent's claim of factory closures), the Court found it just and proper to grant a limited stay. The Court balanced the prejudice, noting that refusal of stay would prejudice the Revenue irreparably, whereas the Respondent could recover the amount if ultimately entitled. Competing Arguments: The Respondent opposed the stay, arguing the CESTAT order was akin to a money decree and should not be stayed. The Court, however, prioritized protecting the Revenue's interest pending appeal. Conclusion: The Court granted an eight-week stay on the direction for cash refund of Rs. 256.45 crores from the date of uploading the order. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court made the following key determinations and legal pronouncements:
Core principles established include the strict demarcation of appellate jurisdiction between the High Court and Supreme Court under Sections 35-G and 35-L of the Central Excise Act, the limited scope of Rule 41 orders as extensions of original orders appealable only before the Supreme Court, and the cautious exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction to avoid piecemeal adjudication when a complete remedy exists. Final determinations on each issue are:
|
