TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o evidence placed before me to establish that the duties were paid after adjudication and rendering a finding of fraud, collusion or suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. In such circumstances, the credit cannot be denied - the appellant is eligible for credit of CVD and SAD paid by them. The Tribunal in the case of M/S. CIRCOR FLOW TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE [ 2021 (12) TMI 675 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and M/S MITHILA DRUGS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, UDAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) [ 2022 (3) TMI 58 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] had analysed a similar issue. In M/s.Mithila Drugs Pvt. Ltd., the facts are identical to that of the instant cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Customs duties along with CVD and Special Additional Duty (SAD) with applicable interest vide T.R. Challan dated 04.04.2019. 2. Meanwhile, G.S.T was introduced with effect from 01.07.2017 and the appellants were unable to avail input credit of CVD and SAD paid by them. They were also not able to transfer such credit to GST regime to TRAN 1 credit as the date of filing TRAN 1 procedure had expired on 27.12.2017. They therefore filed refund claim of Rs.9,76,684/- and Rs.3,07,305/- in regard to above appeals. 3. The original authority rejected the refund claims holding that the appellant is not eligible for CVD and SAD paid by them. They filed appeals against such orders before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the same. Hence these a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by or on behalf of the said manufacturer; (II) inputs or capital goods as such; (ii) an importer; (iii) an importer from his depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said importer if the said depot or the premises, as the case may be, is registered in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002. (iv) a first stage dealer or a second stage dealer, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002; or (b) a supplementary invoice, issued by a manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods in terms of the provisions of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appeal No.40304/ 2021 to argue that notice issued to appellant on 29.06.2016 is merely an intimation letter to pay the duty and is not a demand or recovery notice issued under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, in such notice, there is no allegation of any fraud or wilful misstatement. He submitted that credit can be denied only if there is a finding of fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and cannot be denied merely because an intimation is given by the department to pay the duty. 7. After the introduction of GST, the appellant could not avail cenvat credit of the duties paid by them which, otherwise, they would have been eligible. The appellant has filed ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022-TIOL-325-HC-MAD-GST 2. CESTAT Final Order No.42467/2021 dated 16.12.2021 in the case of M/s.Circor Flow Technologies India Private Ltd. 3. CESTAT Final Order No.42366/2021 dated 11.10.2021 in the case of M/s.Terex India Ltd. 4. CESTAT Final Order No.50157-50159/2022 dated 03.02.2022 in the case of M/s.Mithila Drugs Pvt. Ltd. 9. Ld. A.R Shri Arul C. Durairaj appeared for the Department and supported the findings in the impugned order. 10. Heard both sides. 11. From the narration of facts, it can be seen that Department has rejected the claims invoking Rule 9 (1) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The said provision has already been reproduced above. The Department is of the view that credit is not eligible as ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 142 read with Rule 146 of the CGST Act. 6. Learned Authorised Representative Sh. Mahesh Bhardwaj appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the payment of CVD and SAD subsequently during GST regime, for the imports made prior to 30.06.2017 is not disputed under the advance authorisation scheme. It is also not disputed that the appellant have paid the CVD and SAD in August, 2018 by way of regularisation on being so pointed out by the Revenue Authority. Further, I find that the Court below have erred in observing in the impugned order, that without producing proper records of duty paid invoices etc. in manufacture of dutiable final product, refund cannot be given. I f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
