Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner of CGST & CX, Palghar
Central Excise
2019 (3) TMI 408 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 14-9-2018
APPEAL NO: E\/87174\/2018 – A\/88315\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for appellant
\nShri M.R.Melvin, Superintendent (AR) for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S.K. Mohanty
\nThis appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Bhiwandi.
\n2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of water purification plants, falling under Chapter heading 8421 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails Cenvat Credit in respect of central excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax on the input services. During the disputed period, the appellant had claimed duty exemption in respect of supply of the said final product to specified buye<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n file the refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 instead of taking re-credit on its own. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n nt paragraphs in the said judgment are extracted herein below: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e subsequent conduct of the assessee for a follow up action on an amount of Rs. 3,21,308\/-, which is only an account entry adjustment, technically speaking cannot be taken exception to either by Tribunal or for that atter by the Revenue. For this, we do not find any need for a finding to be given in the order of the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. 16. We do not for a moment deny the fact that a sum of Rs. 3,21,308\/- for which suo motu credit was taken by the assessee was forming part of Rs. 5,38,796\/- which was earlier reversed by the assessee. On the admitted fact, Rs. 3,21,308\/- represented the enumerated input services as given under Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, we have no hesitation in accepting the plea of the assessee that on a technical adjustment made, the question of unjust enrichment as a concept does not arise at all for the assessee to go by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner of CGST & CX, PalgharCentral Excise2019 (3) TMI 408 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 14-9-2018APPEAL NO: E\/87174\/2018 – A\/88315\/2018Central ExciseMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for appellant Shri M.R.Melvin, Superintendent (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is … Continue reading “Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner of CGST & CX, Palghar”<\/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-17196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17196","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=17196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17196\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that taking of re-credit is merely a technical correction\/adjustment of an erroneous accounting entry passed earlier and not fresh availment of credit. Thus, he submits that the provisions of Section 11 B of the Act shall not be applicable. In this context, Learned Advocate has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case on ICMC Corporation Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2014 (302) ELT 45 (Mad.) and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Krishnav Engineering Ltd. Vs. CESTAT reported in 2016 (331) ELT 391 (All.). The Learned Advocate also relied on the decision of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Comm. Of C.E., C. & S.T., Bangalore Vs. Stumpp, Scheule & Somappa P. Ltd., reported in 2015 (319) ELT 146 (Tri. – Bang.).
\n4. On the other hand, Learned AR appearing for R<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“13. We do not subscribe to the view expressed by the Revenue. Admittedly, the assessee originally availed the Cenvat Credit on service Tax for discharging its liability. However, for sound reasons, it reversed the credit. Strictly speaking, in this process, there is only an account entry reversal and factually there is no outflow of funds from assessee to result in filing application under Section 11N of the Central Excise Act, 1944 claiming refund of duty. The contention of the revenue the even in reversal of the entry there is bound to be an unjust enrichment has no substance or based on any legal principle, since, what is availed off by the assessee is only a credit on the duty paid on the services rendered. Further, the assessee is entitled to take no9te of as per Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As there is no dispute of the fact that a sum of Rs. 3,21,308\/- available as Cenvat Credit was in respect of inp<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n17. In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the Trib<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n