M\/s. Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central GST, Noida
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 783 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 10-7-2018
E\/70256\/2018-EX[SM] – A\/71369\/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
\nShri Prateek Dawar (Proxy Counsel) for the Appellant (s)
\nShri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.) (A.R.) for the Revenue
\nORDER
\nPer Mrs. Archana Wadhwa:
\nAs per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses and were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on input, capital goods and input services. It is seen that inasmuch as the appellant was selling the electricity generated in their plant to UPPL, Revenue e<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 015 (322) ELT 769 (SC) was followed by the Commissioner in the assessee's own case and vide Order-in-Original dated 17.11.2016, the demand raised against the assessee on the said ground was dropped. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n sessee and rejected the claim as barred by limitation. Hence the present appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central GST, NoidaCentral Excise2018 (8) TMI 783 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMICESTAT ALLAHABAD – ATDated:- 10-7-2018E\/70256\/2018-EX[SM] – A\/71369\/2018-SM[BR]Central ExciseMRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Shri Prateek Dawar (Proxy Counsel) for the Appellant (s) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.) (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: As per … Continue reading “M\/s. Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central GST, Noida”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13239","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13239","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13239"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13239\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13239"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13239"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13239"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. As a consequence of dropping of demand, the appellant filed a refund claim on 01.12.2016, to the extent of Rs. 30,02,178\/-. While adjudicating the said refund claim, the original adjudicating authority allowed the same to the extent of Rs. 26,23,605\/- and rejected the amount of refund of amounting to Rs. 3,78,573\/- on the ground that the same pertains to the period 2007-08 and 2008-09 and inasmuch as the said period was not covered by the order dated 17.11.2016 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hapur, the same is not refundable to the a<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. The ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the amount was being paid by the appellant in terms of Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the sale of electricity and bagasse by filing a protest letter dated 05.06.2009. The appellant was reversing proportionate credit on the inputs after an objection raised by the audit and after filing of the protest letter in question. It is their contention that inasmuch as the issue now stands decided in their favour, on merits, the said refund has to be granted to them.
\n6. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides I find that every refund application has to pass throug<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n