GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 498 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (7) TMI 498 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (344) E.L.T. 920 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Claim of refund of unutilized cenvat credit - clearances made to International competitive bidding (ICB) - Adjudicating authority has rejected the said refund claim on the ground that the assessee respondent has filed a single claim for the period January 2014 to December 2014, while notification number 27/2012 stipulates for filing of quarterly refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules; also rejected the refund 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

er 27/2012 contemplates for filing of refund claims of unutilised Cenvat credit quarterly, but it does not bar an assessee from filing refund claim for the entire period which may be more than a quarter. In the absence of any explicit bar, refund claims, if otherwise eligible, cannot be rejected on the ground that they are not filed quarterly. - Refund allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. - Application No. E/S/94521/1 In Appeal No. E/86566/15, E/CO/91137/15 - Final Order Nos. A/88223-8822 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

credit that remained unutilised due to clearances of the final products under International competitive bidding and duty liability was not required to be discharged. Adjudicating authority has rejected the said refund claim on the ground that the assessee respondent has filed a single claim for the period January 2014 to December 2014, while notification number 27/2012 stipulates for filing of quarterly refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules; also rejected the refund claim on the grou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cross objection against the appeal filed by revenue. As we are disposing the appeal itself, the stay petition filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the respondent assessee is also disposed of. 3. Learned Joint Commissioner (authorised representative) submits that the impugned order is incorrect and erroneous. He draws our attention to the conditions of notification number 27/2012 and submits that the said notification mandated for filing of refund claims of unutilised 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

27 (S.C.) have held that exemption notifications have to be read strictly and in the case in hand the notification number 27/2012 being in the form of exemption notification needs to be read restrictively. He would submit that the first appellate authority has wrongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Western cans private Limited 2011 (270) ELET the 101. 4. Learned Counsel draws our attention to the grounds of appeal of the revenue and submits that the show cause notice wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the point which according to him covers the issue in their favour. It is his submission that the judgement of the Tribunal was challenged by the revenue in High Court of Gujarat and the said appeal was rejected by their Lordships by a speaking order as reported at 2011 (269) ELT 17(Guj). He would submit that the 2nd point for rejection of the refund claim as to non-submission of the documents is also incorrect as notification number 27/2012 does not envisage of submission of proof of export .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essee has cleared the final products under International competitive bidding which they claim as deemed export. It is also undisputed that the respondent assessee is eligible to avail the Cenvat credit on the inputs received for manufacturing of final products and the final products are liable to duty. 6.2 We find that the appeal filed by the revenue against the impugned order is liable to be rejected for more than one reason. 6.3 Firstly, we find that the learned Counsel appearing for the respo .....

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