TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riented Undertaking was exempt from whole of duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and additional duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and additional duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978. Only exception under the above exemption notification was under the proviso - The proviso was admittedly not applicable to the facts of the present case. As per Section 5(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the petitioner could not have paid excise duty. Therefore, the petitioner could not have also paid excise duty goods export to claim rebate. As a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee months from date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off. - W.P. No. 10877 of 2017 and W.M.P. No. 11822 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2020 - C. Saravanan, J. Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, Senior Counsel, for the Petitioner. Ms. Hema Murali Krishna, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Respondent in impugned Order-in-Original No. 1-26/2017(Rebate) and quash the Order dated 25-1-2017 passed therein and further direct the Respondent to pay the amount of rebate of ₹ 1,16,93,725/- along with interest at 12% per annum from date of rebate claim. 2. I have h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner unit has ceased to operate. It is submitted that had the respondents decided the issue then and there, the petitioner may have utilised the credit for DTA clearance before it was deregistered as a 100% EOU unit and surrendered its Central Excise registration. It is submitted that the rebate claim were disallowed only on 25-1-2017 in respect of 25 rebate claims filed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the exports made during the period commencing from March, 2012 to October, 2013 under 25 rebate claims under 25 different show cause notices which were issued between June, 2012 to October, 2013. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner had surrendered the Excise registration as early as 20-12-2013 and since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontained in this notification in respect of duty of excise leviable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act shall not apply to such goods if brought to any other place in India. 12. The proviso was admittedly not applicable to the facts of the present case. As per Section 5(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the petitioner could not have paid excise duty. Therefore, the petitioner could not have also paid excise duty goods export to claim rebate. 13. At the same time, no provision has been brought to the notice of this court to show how the Input Tax Credit/Credit availed on capital goods was allowed to accumulate and lapse. 14. Under a somewhat similar circumstances in Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Co. Private Uimite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not re-credited back to the petitioner. The Cenvat credit not only remained unutilised in view of the rejection of rebate claim but also on account of the fact that the amount was not re-credited back to the petitioner s account. The petitioner has also closed down its factory and therefore, it can no longer be used. 17. If the petitioner had continued to carry on the activity and registered itself under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, it would have been entitled to transitional credit under Section 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. If the petitioner could utilise it, it could not claim refund of such duty under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. 18. As a Export Oriented Unit t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
