Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Panchkula Versus Sainsons Paper Industries Ltd.

2016 (2) TMI 288 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Demand of Interest - Refund by taking credit of the amount in their cenvat account and thereby taking a suo motto refund of pre-deposit - Held that:- As per the appellate order dated 22.6.2007 the pre-deposit amount has to be refunded to the respondent. The act of the respondents in taking refund of the amount by crediting the amount in their cenvat credit account, is only a procedural lapse. After taking credit, the respondents have declared the same in their ER-1 returns of July, 2007 itself. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ication for refund. As the amount is payable/refundable to the respondents w.e.f.22.6.2007, do not find any ground to demand interest on the very same amount alleging that the respondents took credit irregularly. The impugned order calls for no interference. - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/52862/2014-Ex-SM, with E/CO/54535/2014 - Final Order No. A/53429/2015-SM(BR) - Dated:- 12-11-2015 - Sulekha Beevi CS, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shri R K Mishra, AR For the Respondent : Shri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sideration, it is necessary to narrate the events chronologically which is as under: 1.1 M/s. Sainsons Paper Industries Ltd., the respondents herein, are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board. On scrutiny of the records, it was observed by the department, that during the period March, 2000 to May, 2000, the respondents herein availed modvat/cenvat credit on the inputs which were also used in the manufacture/ clearance of fully exempted product without reversing an amount equivalent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

if any. During the pendency of this appeal, the respondents herein had made pre-deposit of ₹ 10,91,728/- under section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The appeal having been allowed in their favour with consequential relief, the respondents herein under the belief that they could take refund of pre-deposit by suo moto credit in their cenvat credit account took credit of ₹ 10,91,728/- in June, 2007 and declared the same in their ER-1 returns of July, 2007. They also informed the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s of the Order-in-Appeal dated 22.06.2007. That respondents could not take credit of the amount of pre-deposit of ₹ 10,91,728/- without filing an application for refund. After adjudication of this show cause notice, Order-in-Original dated 2.4.2009 was passed confirming the disallowance of credit and ordered recovery of the same along with interest, besides imposing penalty. 3. Being aggrieved by the above order, the respondents herein filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who ob .....

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 to be received by department on 11.1.2011. Thereupon a show cause notice dated 4.4.2011 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground that the application is time barred. After adjudication, the order-in-original dated 26.4.2011 was passed rejecting the refund claim for the reason that the application is time barred as per section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said order was challenged by respondents herein by filing an appeal. In such appeal, besides raising their c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der afresh the very same refund application dated 11.01.2011. The grounds alleged in this show cause notice are twofold (i) That the application for refund is time barred as per section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 (ii) That the said amount of ₹ 10,91,728/- was under demand vide order dated 2.4.2009 and as upheld by Order-in-Appeal dated 3.11.2010 which disallowed taking suo motto credit. After adjudication of the said notice, an order dated 29.6.2012 was passed sanctioning the refund o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 23.1.2014 which is the order impugned in the present appeal before me, set aside the demand of interest and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein, on the ground that no demand for interest was raised in the show cause notice. The Revenue is in appeal now challenging the said order, which set aside the demand for interest. 7. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents herein are liable to pay interest from the date of ta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o pay interest. The main argument raised by the counsel for the respondents is that the respondents had submitted a letter dated 22.2.2008 requesting to order sanction of refund. That as per Board's circular, no application is required to be submitted for refund of pre-deposit. That from the date of Order-in-Appeal dated 22.6.2007, when the appeal was allowed in their favour with consequential relief, they were entitled to the amount. That in any case, there was no recovery due and there 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

peal dated 22.6.2007 allowed their appeal with consequential relief. Thus they became entitled to get refund of the pre-deposit amount. The respondents took refund of the amount by taking credit of the said amount in their Cenvat credit account in June, 2007. They declared the same in their ER-I returns of July, 2007. On 22.2.2008 they submitted a letter to Assistant Commissioner, Ambala requesting to issue formal orders sanctioning the refund and sought permission for utilization of the credit. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Superintendent Central Excise of our range for the above and that he has advised us to make a request to you directly in the matter. We may add that Central Excise Board had clarified vide their circular No.275/37/200-CC 8A dated 02.01.2002 that in such cases the pre deposits will be refunded without any application from the assessee." 11. It is seen that the department has then issued a show cause notice dated 28.5.2008 alleging wrong availment of credit. It is the case of Revenue that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the party on delayed refund of pre-deposit @ 12% p.a. commencing from three months after final disposal of the dispute between the parties. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under: The issue in this appeal and in several other appeals is whether the pre-deposit made as a pre-condition for the hearing of the appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1985 was, on the assessee being ultimately successful, refundable to the assessee with interest. The learned Solicitor General has tak .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

art of this order. The appeal is disposed of. In view of this order any judgment of any High Court holding to the contrary will no longer be good law. 12.2 The above judgement held that interest is payable on the pre-deposit commencing from three months after the final disposal of the dispute between the parties. This Tribunal after referring to the C.B.E. & C Instruction No.F.275/37/2k-Cx.8A dated 2.1.2002 and C.B.E. & C Circular No.802/35/2004-CX dated 8.12.2004 in the following judgem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under: "Where an amount deposited by the appellant in pursuance of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority), under the first proviso to section 35F, is required to be refunded consequent upon the order of the appellate authority and such amount is not refunded within three months from the date of communication of such order to the adjudicating authority, unless the operation of the order of the appellate au .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cation, and was also entitled to interest for delayed refund as per the dictum laid in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra). After 10.5.2008, the new section 35FF provides that the pre-deposit, is required to be refunded consequent upon the order of the appellate authority, and such amount if not refunded within three months from the date of communication of such order to the adjudicating authority, the party is entitled to get interest. Section 35FF does not say that an application has to be filed to g .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version