Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1040 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of CENVAT credit of CVD and SAD paid by them - rejection of claim invoking Rule 9 (1) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Department is of the view that credit is not eligible as appellant has paid the duties only after issuing a demand notice - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the alleged demand notice, it is merely in the nature of an intimation letter and has not been issued invoking any provisions of Customs law or Excise law. Further, in such intimation also, there is no allegation of any fraud, collusion or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. There is no evidence placed before me to establish that the duties were paid after adjudication and rendering a finding of fraud, collusion or suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. In such circumstances, the credit cannot be denied - the appellant is eligible for credit of CVD and SAD paid by them. The Tribunal in the case of M/S. CIRCOR FLOW TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE [2021 (12) TMI 675 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and M/S MITHILA DRUGS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, UDAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) [2022 (3) TMI 58 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] had analysed a similar issue. In M/s.Mithila Drugs Pvt. Ltd., the facts are identical to that of the instant case, where it was held that the Court below have erred in observing in the impugned order, that without producing proper records of duty paid invoices etc. in manufacture of dutiable final product, refund cannot be given. I further find that refund of CVD and SAD in question is allowable, as credit is no longer available under the GST regime, which was however available under the erstwhile regime of Central Excise prior to 30.06.2017. The rejection of refund claims cannot be justified - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|