TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal remits case for Cenvat Credit Rules compliance, emphasizes preventing export of Indian taxes</h1> <h3>M/s Hind Spinners Versus CCE, Bhopal</h3> M/s Hind Spinners Versus CCE, Bhopal - 2011 (271) E.L.T. 537 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for cash refund of Cenvat credit after abolition of ADE (T&TA).2. Procedural compliance regarding the filing of refund claims.3. Determination of the period to which the refund claim relates.4. The validity of the grounds for rejection of the refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals).Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Cash Refund of Cenvat Credit After Abolition of ADE (T&TA):The Appellant filed a refund claim on 17.11.08 for cash refund of Cenvat credit under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (ADE (T&TA)), which was abolished effective 9.7.04. The claim was based on the inability to utilize the credited amount for domestic duty payments post-abolition. The Assistant Commissioner verified and sanctioned the refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, considering the unutilized credit as eligible for cash refund.2. Procedural Compliance Regarding the Filing of Refund Claims:The Department's appeal raised objections regarding the non-filing of the refund claim in the prescribed application form as per Notification No. 05/2006 (NT). However, the Appellant contended that the application was accepted without objection, and any procedural lapse should be treated as a minor error. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not address this procedural issue directly but instead rejected the refund on a different ground related to the finality of the order-in-original.3. Determination of the Period to Which the Refund Claim Relates:The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of the 'given period' for which the refund claim relates, as stipulated in Notification 05/2006-CE (NT). The Tribunal noted that there was no clear provision defining the 'given period' in the context of this case. The Tribunal decided that the period from one year prior to 1998 until the abolition of ADE (T&TA) on 9.7.2004 should be considered for the refund claim of Rs.1,80,853/-. For the remaining Rs.80,567/-, the period was taken as one year preceding 9.7.2004.4. Validity of the Grounds for Rejection of the Refund Claim by the Commissioner (Appeals):The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim on the ground that the order-in-original granting refund by credit into Cenvat account was not challenged and had reached finality. The Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning, emphasizing that the Appellant was not given an opportunity to rebut this point and that the conditions for claiming refund of Cenvat credit due to export were not examined in the initial adjudication. The Tribunal also recognized the CBEC's clarification allowing cash refund of accumulated credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Conclusion:The Tribunal remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify the Appellant's records and ensure compliance with the conditions under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and Notification 05/2006-CE (NT). The adjudicating authority was directed to consider the period from one year prior to 1998 until 9.7.2004 for the refund claim of Rs.1,80,853/- and one year preceding 9.7.2004 for Rs.80,567/-. The Tribunal emphasized that the objective of the indirect taxation system is to avoid exporting taxes levied in India.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
