M\/s. IAC Electricals (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & C. EX (Appeal-I) Kolkata
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 699 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 28-5-2018
E\/75895\/2018 – FO\/76593\/2018
Central Excise
Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
\nFor the Appellant(s) : Shri Amitabha Lahiri, Advocate
\nFor the Revenue : Shri A. K. Biswas, Suptd. (A. R.)
\nORDER
\nPER SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY
\nBriefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Transmission Hardware fittings used in High Tension Power Transmission lines classifiable under Chapter 73 & 76 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant sells its products to various State Electricity <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 3A, Part-II, Entry Serial No. 11 dated 26\/02\/2013 and also paid Rs. 30,000\/- in cash on account of interest vide GAR-7 Challan No. 50473 dated 26\/02\/2013. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n wed the refund but directed the appellant to pay back the cash refund along with interest. If this is to be done without crediting equivalent amount in electronic credit ledger then, it would lead to holding back money by the Government which is not due to the exchequer. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. IAC Electricals (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & C. EX (Appeal-I) KolkataCentral Excise2019 (1) TMI 699 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 28-5-2018E\/75895\/2018 – FO\/76593\/2018Central ExciseShri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant(s) : Shri Amitabha Lahiri, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri A. K. Biswas, Suptd. (A. R.) ORDER PER SHRI … Continue reading “M\/s. IAC Electricals (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & C. EX (Appeal-I) Kolkata”<\/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-16175","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16175","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=16175"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16175\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Being aggrieved, by the O.I.O. dt. 13\/03\/2014, the Revenue filed the appeal before the First Appellate Authority against the Order-in- Original No. R\/01\/C.Ex.\/Refund\/Behala\/Kol-V\/13-14.
\n4. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the Department by setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 13\/03\/2014 and remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision. The Assessee has preferred this appeal.
\n5. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant Company submits that after Post-Audit verification of the refund of Rs. 1,82,901\/- , the D<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. The Ld. DR reiterates the order of the Lower Appellate Authority.
\n7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
\n8. I find that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, since refund has been made in cash and not by crediting in the Cenvat Credit account of the appellant, the appellant is not getting additional credit for which it has to pay more in cash and less through CENVAT Credit Account. Thus, in effect, it does not make any difference so far, pay<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n