Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Latest Cases

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (8) TMI 485

..... refund claim is vague and does not state reasons on which the Department proposed to reject the refund claim. Further I find that appellant has attached the documents in support of his refund claim application and no defect memo was issued by the Department, if some documents were missing in the application seeking refund, the Department could have sought those documents from the appellant - Not disclosing the unutilized balance of CENVAT credit in ER1 returns is only a procedural lapse and cannot be a ground to reject the refund claim. The impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original authority to examine all the documents which have been filed by the appellant in support .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... was NIL, the appellant failed to declare the credit held by them under TRANS-1. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the same. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has overruled all the submissions made by the appellant and has also overlooked the case laws cited by them. He further submitted that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice as no reasoning has been given for rej .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... the necessary documents in support of their claim. He further submitted that if some document was lacking, then original authority as well as the Commissioner(Appeals) could have asked the appellant to furnish the required document before examining their claim but they have chosen to reject the refund claim straightaway without examining the documents submitted by them. he further submitted that the appellant has in fact submitted the details of the amount claimed as refund, copies of ER-1 returns, copy of the CENVAT credit register which is required for processing the refund claim. He further submitted that the refund has also been rejected on the ground that unutilized balance of CENVAT credit was not disclosed in ER1 returns. To counter .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... facts in the case of Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. was different as it was a case of closure of unit whereas in this case it is not so. Learned counsel further submitted that it is not the facts but the principle / ratio of the decision which is significant. He also submitted that in the case of Srinivasa Hair Industries Vs. CCE, Chennai-II [2016-TIOL-1203-CESTAT-MAD] wherein it was held that in cases where an assessee is unable to utilize the credit for due to closure of their business or any other circumstances beyond their control, law cannot be interpreted to cause absurdity or impossibility. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant failed to mention the provision under which .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

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

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||