TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obligation in terms of EPCG License of advance authorization for import of the capital goods by the appellants - HELD THAT:- The appellant had not deposited the duty during the existence of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Resultantly, the question of appellant becoming entitled to cenvat credit under the existing law does not at all arise. Section 140 and 142 of CGST, Act no doubt all the transitional provisions permits for tax or duty or refund of amount credit lying in stock on the appointed day (01.07.2012) however, subject to following two conditions:- (i) the assessee should have become eligible for the said credit under existing law; (ii) the said credit should have been transferred to electronic ledger - Since the duty in the present c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly barred by time - seeing the impugned refund was absolutely online, the benefit of said decision cannot be extended in favour of the appellant. The refund claim is held to have rightly been rejected. The impugned order is sustained - Appeal dismissed. - DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri G. G. Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Arun Sheoran, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed to assail Order-in-Appeal bearing No. 09/2023 dated 31.01.2023 vide which the refund claim filed by the appellant has been rejected. 2. The facts giving arise to the present adjudication are as follows:- (i) That the appellant are the manufacturer-exporter of the excisable goods, they were issued an EPCG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 2004 or CGST Rules, 2017. The said proposal of rejection of refund claim for an amount of Rs. 13,36,794/- was confirmed initially vide Order-in-Original dated 28.09.2021. However, no penalty, as proposed vide the said show cause notice was imposed upon the appellant. Appeal against the said order has been rejected vide the aforementioned order under challenge. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard Shri G. G. Gupta, Advocate and Shri Arun Sheoran, Authorized Representative. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the new CGST Act allows a person registered under existing law (Central Excise Act, 1944) to avail input tax credit which was held in stock on the appointed day (01.07.2012) even i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal. 8. Having heard the rival contentions, I observe and hold as follows:- That the refund claim lying in cenvat credit on CVD and BCD paid by the appellant has been rejected on two counts:- (i) Non compliance by the appellant to the export obligation in terms of EPCG License of advance authorization for import of the capital goods by the appellants (ii) On the ground of limitation, the refund claim being filed after the expiry of period mentioned in the Section 11B of the existing law (CEA, 1944) 9. With respect to first issue as mentioned above, following are observed to be admitted facts:- (i) That the appellant was issued an EPCG Authorization dated 11.09.2009 by DGFT for import of capital goods without paying customs duty on the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meet with the export obligation may not hold good here since, firstly, it was a conditional import, and secondly, such import was to be exclusively used as per Foreign Trade Policy. Moreover, such imported inputs cannot be used anywhere else but for export, and hence, claiming input credit upon failure would defeat the very purpose/mandate of the Advance Authorization. Hence, claim as to the benefit of CENVAT just as a normal import which is suffering duty is also unavailable for the very same reasons, also since the rules/ procedures/conditions governing normal import compared to the one under Advance Authorization vary because of the nature of import. In brief, the unit can not be rewarded through refund of the duty which was paid by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 as has also been relied upon by the adjudicating Authority. We accordingly conclude that the amount in question since has been paid after introduction of CGST, Act 2017 but for the Bill of Entry of the year 2010 (dated 10.09.2010) on account of failure of compliance with the export obligation under advance authorization license, the cenvat credit of such duty which is paid under the present CGST Law, cannot be made available to the assessee in the light of the transitional provisions of new CGST, Act. More for the reason, the appellant was notregistered under Excise Department.The appellant is not eligible even under Section 172 of the GST Act. 12. Coming to the second ground of rejection i.e. limitation, apparently and admittedly the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
