Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 1204 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (12) TMI 1204 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (336) E.L.T. 654 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Denial of refund claim - Unutilized CENVAT Credit - Notification No. 6/2002 - Held that:- Appellants were eligible to avail deemed credit on the inputs procured by them for manufacture of textile and textile articles, during the period Sept, 2002 to Jan, 2003. It is also undisputed that during the relevant period, the appellant had manufactured and exported the goods on payment of duty. - there is no doubt that unutiliz .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fore the expiry of the quarter ending 31.3.2003 is a non-starter and the assessee can plan his business and can file the refund claim even before the quarter comes to an end. The other grievance of the Revenue that non-filing the return correctly is a procedural lapse as also and non-starter as when there is no dispute as to the fact that the assessee respondent in this case has utilized the inputs in manufacturing and exported the goods, the denial of credit will not be in consonance of the law .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune-I. 2. The brief facts of the case are the respondent assessee engaged in manufacture of textile and filed the refund claim for the period 7.9.2012 for an amount of ₹ 19.49 lakhs in respect of the CENVAT Credit remained unutilized when the goods manufactured by them were exported. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim. Aggrieved by such order, Department preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

benefit of deemed credit. It is his submission that the lower authorities were also in error in considering that the refund claims, which should have been filed quarterly and not for two quarters at a time. It is his further submission that the refund claim for quarter ending 31.3.2003 was filed on 21.3.2003 before the quarter ending, which is also not correct. He would submit that the lower authority relying upon the Notification No. 6/2002 and holding that non filing of refund claim quarterly .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the Respondent would submit that identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the following cases: - (i) Amrutanjan Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2001 (128) ELT 244 (T) (ii) CCE, Bombay Vs. Gupta Soaps - 1999 (111) ELT 720 (T) (iii) Quality BPO Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad - 2015 (39) STR 230 (Tri-Ahmd) It is his submission that interpreting the provisions of identical worded notification, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE, Surat-I Vs. Annapurna Industries Pv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d that during the relevant period, the appellant had manufactured and exported the goods on payment of duty. 5.2 On this background, we find that there is no doubt that unutilized CENVAT Credit lying in the balance of the Books of the respondent is liable to be refund to him. No provisions were brought to our notice which indicate that such deemed credit would lapse after rescinding of Notification No. 6/2002. We find that the first appellate authority while upholding the findings of adjudicatin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the respondents had filed refund claim on 16.03.2003, but the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim on 16.07.2003, when deemed credit provisions ceased to exist with effect from 01.04.2003. Since the respondents have filed the refund claim in time i.e. when the provisions of Notification No. 06/2002-CE(NT) were in existence, therefore, the claim has been rightly sanctioned. As regards the contention of the department that the claim was not filed on quarterly basis, the same is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version