Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Department cannot adjust unconfirmed demand against refund payable to the Assessee

Bimal jain
Department Can't Adjust Unconfirmed Demand Against Refund Without Proper Notice Under Section 73 of Finance Act 1994. The Hon'ble CESTAT, Delhi ruled that the Department cannot adjust an unconfirmed demand against a refund payable to an assessee. In the case involving a telecom company, the company filed for a refund of 11,79,720. The Department attempted to adjust 11,18,182 from this refund, citing inadmissible Cenvat credit. However, the Tribunal found that the Department failed to issue a proper Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, making the demand unconfirmed. Consequently, the Department was directed to refund the adjusted amount of 11,18,182 to the company with applicable interest. (AI Summary)

Dear Professional Colleague,

Department cannot adjust unconfirmed demand against refund payable to the Assessee

We are sharing with you an important judgement of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2014 (10) TMI 139 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]on following issue:

Issue:

Whether Department can adjust unconfirmed demand against refund payable to the Assessee?

Facts and Background:

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (“the Appellant”) filed refund claim of ₹ 11,79,720/- for the excess amount paid. The Appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice dated January 17, 2007 (“SCN”) to show cause as to why their refund claim of ₹ 11,79,720/- should not be rejected. The Appellant submitted their reply dated May 25, 2007 and was sanctioned entire refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 44/R/2007.

However, the Assistant Commissioner later issued a corrigendum dated July 17, 2007 to the SCN stating that as the Appellant had taken Cenvat credit to the tune of ₹ 11,18,182/- on the strength of the invoices for Capital goods issued by their Head Office, the same was not admissible as their Head Office was not registered as a registered dealer and therefore asking why their refund claim should not be rejected to the extent of ₹ 11,18,182/-.

Later, the Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the adjustment of ₹ 11,18,182/- out of the total refund of ₹ 11,79,720/-and the Appellant was refunded only the net (remaining) amount of ₹ 61,538/- in form of Cenvat credit. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi.

Held:

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi observed that there has been no Show Cause Notice given to the Appellant for showing cause as to why Cenvat credit amount of ₹ 11,18,182/- (adjusted from the amount of refund sanctioned) was inadmissible to them and even if the corrigendum issued on July 17, 2007 is an attempt to be treated as a Show Cause Notice, the said corrigendum falls fatally short of the requirement of a notice under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Accordingly, it was held by the Hon’ble Tribunal that while confirmed demand can be adjusted from the amount of refund, there is no provision to adjust unconfirmed demand from the amount of refund and in the instant case, ₹ 11,18,182/- cannot be held to be a confirmed demand.

Hence, the Department was directed to refund back ₹ 11,18,182/- to the Appellant along with applicable interest.

Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.

Thanks and Best Regards.

Bimal Jain

FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons)

 

Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor, Pocket - 1,

Mayur Vihar, Phase - I,

Delhi – 110091, India

Desktel: +91-11-22757595/ 42427056

Mobile: +91 9810604563

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.a2ztaxcorp.com

Disclaimer: The contents of this document are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the authors nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this document nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Readers are advised to consult the professional for understanding applicability of this newsletter in the respective scenarios. While due care has been taken in preparing this document, the existence of mistakes and omissions herein is not ruled out. No part of this document should be distributed or copied (except for personal, non-commercial use) without our written permission.

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles