9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow the threshold limit prescribed in the instruction dated 22.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs [in short "Board"]. 2. The limit prescribed in the said circular for preferring appeals to this Court is Rs.1,00,00,000/- 3. Mr Harpreet Singh, learned senior standing counsel who appears on behalf of the applicant/appellant, accepts that as on that date, the tax effect was below the threshold limit. 3.1 Although that position has not changed, it is now sought to be argued in the recall application, that the said circular would not apply in the matters concerning interest on amount(s) ordered to be refunded. 4. It may be important to note that the instruction dated 22.08.2019 adverts to an earlier instruction d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal or ultra vires. 1.4 Several queries connected with application of monetary limits have been raised by the field formations which were considered by the Board and are being clarified as below:- Issues Clarifications xxx xxx xxx 1. Whether monetary limits would apply to cases of refund. It is clarified that the monetary limits being prescribed by the Board would apply to cases of refund as well. xxx xxx xxx 5. It is not in dispute, that the non-applicant/respondent had deposited Rs.25,00,000/- during investigation, and had also furnished bank guarantee of an equal amount. 6. The record also shows, that pursuant to the conclusion of investigation, adjudication proceedings were carried out, which resulted in an order-in-original d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority via order dated 08.10.2020, while sanctioning the refund of Rs.25,00,000/- did not issue any direction with regard to the interest. 12.1 Against this order, the respondent preferred an appeal with the first appellate authority i.e., Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise/GST, Delhi. 12.2 The grievance articulated by the respondent was, that it had not been paid interest. 13. The Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise/GST, Delhi via order dated 18.02.2021, partially allowed the appeal, inasmuch as interest was granted to the respondent, for the period commencing from the date immediately after the expiry of three months of filing of the refund application, till the date when the amount was refunded to the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the Board's communication addressed to the Commissioner of CGST is extracted hereafter: "Sir, Please refer to your SLP proposal vide C.No. V(Law)HQ/GST/DB/HC/Batra Henley/40/2022 dated 07.10.2022 on the above mentioned subject. 2. In this regard, it is informed that Board, after examination of the proposal, has decided not to file SLP in the subject case purely on monetary grounds, keeping the question of law open in terms of Section 35R of Central Excise Act, 1944." 20. Therefore, since the Board has declined to file an SLP, surely, this application for recall cannot lie. 21. That said, on the interpretation of the circular, we are in agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
