Caparo Engineering India Ltd Versus CGST, C.C. & C.E., Ujjain
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 922 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 1461 (Tri. – Del.)
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 6-12-2018
Excise Appeal Nos. E\/53148\/2018 [SM], E\/53149\/2018 [SM] – FINAL ORDER NO. 53399-53400\/2018
Central Excise
MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nPresent for the Appellant: Mr. Manish Saharan, Advocate
\nPresent for the Respondent: Ms. Tamana Alam & Mr. K. Poddar, DRs
\nORDER
\nPER: RACHNA GUPTA
\nPresent order disposes of two Appeals for the issue being common. The appellant herein initially pays an adjudication proposing the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 74,89,162\/- which was confirmed vide the Order-in-Original dated 22.09.2009 alongwith the interest and the penalties. However when the matter was appealed before this Tribunal, vide stay Order dated 28.04.2011, appellant was directed to deposit the entire demand of the aforesaid duty. In a writ petition No. 5314\/2011 c<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 24.04.2017 to 11.04.2018 was not granted on the sanctioned refund amount of Rs. 40 lakhs. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n thin the stipulated time limit of three months as prescribed by law. Explanation in custom refund application (from Regulation 1995) is being impressed upon wherein it has been clarified that for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 27A of the Act the application shall be deemed to have been received on the date on which a complete application as acknowledged by the proper officer has been made. Finally justifying the Order of Commissioner(Appeals) bearing No. 1492 dated 16.07.2018 Appeal in hand is prayed to be dismissed. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is nothing to be read in or nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intentment as it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Ajmera Housing Corporation and other Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 2010 (8) SCC 739. If at this stage, the plea of Department is looked into still the deficiency of application does not entitle the Department to get an extension of the period of 3 months as has been statutorily provided. Further, there is a Notification as impressed upon by the appellant. Perusal thereof shows that it is a clarificatory decision specifically with respect to the refund of pre- deposit requiring such pre-deposits to be made within three months from the date of the Tribunal Orders. As mentioned in para 4 of the Circular, the word used therein is that such pre-deposit must be returned within three months rather from the date of the Order passed by the appellate Tri<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Caparo Engineering India Ltd Versus CGST, C.C. & C.E., UjjainCentral Excise2018 (12) TMI 922 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 1461 (Tri. – Del.)CESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 6-12-2018Excise Appeal Nos. E\/53148\/2018 [SM], E\/53149\/2018 [SM] – FINAL ORDER NO. 53399-53400\/2018Central ExciseMRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Manish Saharan, Advocate … Continue reading “Caparo Engineering India Ltd Versus CGST, C.C. & C.E., Ujjain”<\/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-15570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15570","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=15570"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15570\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. I have heard Mr. Manish Saharan, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Tamana Alam, Ld DR for the Department.
\n3. Ld. Counsel for appellant has paid reliance upon Circular No. 802\/35\/2004 dated 08.12.2004 impressing upon that it is mandate upon the Department that in case the refund is not sanctioned within three months the Department is liable to sanction the same alongwith the interest. The statutory provision i.e. Section 11B of the Customs Act is also emphasised. It is submitted that grounds of rejecting the contention praying for interest alongwith the amount of refund has been rejected on unreasonable grounds as that of the want of the copy of the Final Order of this Tribunal. It is submitted that irrespective the appellant himself provided the copy as demanded on 04.01.2018 that the same was available with the Department. Otherwise<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. After hearing both the parties, the only question to be adjudicated herein is as to whether the date of refund application as required in Section 11B of the Customs Act has to be the date of application on which it has been filed or it has to be the date on which the deficiencies in the application got corrected. For the purpose, Section 11BB is relevant to be looked into, it reads as follows:
\n“11BB. Interest on delayed refunds – if any duty ordered <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n