Dy General Manager, BHEL Versus Commissioner CGST & CE, Kanpur
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 631 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 7-9-2018
APPEAL No. E\/70875\/2018-EX[SM] – A\/72137\/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Z.U. Alvi (Advocate) for Appellant
\nShri Mohd Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Archana Wadhwa
\nAfter hearing both the sides I find that the appellant was working under provisional assessments and on finalization of the same, they became entitled to refund of Rs. 4,02,757\/-. The said refund claim was sanctioned by the Original Adjudicating Authority but appropriated against the outstanding interest amounts.
\n2. The said order of <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d that whatever interest demands are pending against the assessee, the same have been stayed by the Higher Appellate Forum. The appellant also made a prayer to Commissioner (Appeals) for payment of the refunded amount in cash. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n mmissioner (Appeals) was that such sanctioned refund claim cannot be adjusted against the outstanding interest amounts. Such plea of both the sides stand accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such there can be no further cause of grievance on the part of the assessee. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dy General Manager, BHEL Versus Commissioner CGST & CE, KanpurCentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 631 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMICESTAT ALLAHABAD – ATDated:- 7-9-2018APPEAL No. E\/70875\/2018-EX[SM] – A\/72137\/2018-SM[BR]Central ExciseMrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Z.U. Alvi (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Mohd Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa After hearing both the sides … Continue reading “Dy General Manager, BHEL Versus Commissioner CGST & CE, Kanpur”<\/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-14439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14439","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=14439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14439\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order accepted the Revenue's stand that such adjustment of the refunded amount, which was to be refunded in RG 23A Part II was not proper inasmuch as the interest in other cases has to be paid by the assessee in cash. Accordingly, he allowed the Revenue's appeal.
\nAs regards the assessee's cross objections, he observed that the same are not maintainable and the assessee could not have filed any cross objection against the Revenue's appeal and as such rejected the same as no<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. As such the only grievance left on the part of the assessee is as to whether the sanctioned refunds have to be made in cash or in RG 23A Part-II as credit. On being questioned learned Advocate fairly agrees that such duties were originally paid out of the credit account only and not in cash. He has further fairly agreed that the appellant is in a position to use the said credited amount for payment of duties in future. If that be so, I really fail to understand the<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n