2018 (6) TMI 777 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Refund of Cess paid – Secondary & Higher Education Cess – time limitation – Section 11B of Central Excise Act – Held that:- There is no basic provision either in the Excise Act or under the Cenvat Credit Rules relating to the refund of the accumulated credit – In the absence of any such provision conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal to deal with the refunds of accumulated unutilized credits, it is not possible to go beyond the legislation and to deal with the said issue.
–
Cenvat Credit Rules allows the credit of the duty/tax paid on the inputs for further utilisation of the same in discharge of the dues on the final product. As such, it become clear that credit is admissible only for utilisation towards payment of duty on the final product of the asessee and such credit can never be encashed by the asessee.
–
Appeal dismissed – decided against appellant. – Excise Appeal No. E/50884/2018-EX[SM] – A/52111/2018-SM[BR] – Dated:- 30-5
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r 01.03.2015. As the appellant s raw materials were received prior to 01.03.2015, they were not in a position to avail the benefit of Notification No. 12/2015-CE. 3. As the appellants were having credit of cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess lying unutilized in their account, as on 01.03.2015, when the cess liability was withdrawn, they applied for the refund of the same to the extent of ₹ 708933/-. The revenue by entertaining a view that there are no provisions in the Excise Act for allowing refund of accumulated unutilized credit, initiated proceedings against them by way of issuance of a show cause notice resulting in passing of the present impugned order by the original Adjudicating Authority vide which refund stand rejected. The said Order was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present Appeal. 4. By referring to the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, the appellate authority observed: 8. I find that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ulated credit. Ld. Advocate has also not been able to draw my attention to any of such provision or any notification etc. The argument of the Ld Advocate that the refund should be given as they are not in a position to utilise the credit cannot be appreciated inasmuch as this court is not working on the principle of equity, justice and good conscious, but being a creator of the Act, is bound by the provisions of the Act. In the absence of any such provision conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal to deal with the refunds of accumulated unutilized credits, it is not possible to go beyond the legislation and to deal with the said issue. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Porcelain Electrical Mfg 1998 (98) E.L.T. 583 (S.C.) while dealing with the power of the authorities under the Act has clearly observed that the authorities have to work within the provisions of law and cannot exercise writ jurisdiction of High Courts in terms of Article 226. 6. Otherwise also, I find that the Cenv
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =