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 Orders Refund of Unutilized CENVAT Credit</h1> <h3>M/s. ATV Projects India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Raigad</h3> M/s. ATV Projects India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Raigad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on the closure of the factory.2. Applicability of binding judicial precedent and the principle of stare decisis.3. Interpretation of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.4. Whether the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. is applicable.5. Impact of amendments to Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules in 2012.6. Limitation period for filing a refund claim.7. Application of the doctrine of merger and Article 141 of the Constitution.8. Revisiting the legality of the issue after the Supreme Court's decision.Detailed Analysis:1. Refund of Unutilized CENVAT Credit on Closure of Factory:The primary issue revolves around whether the appellant is entitled to a cash refund of unutilized CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,80,26,559/- on the closure of their factory in 2017. The appellant argued that the accumulated credit could not be utilized due to the factory's closure and sought a refund based on previous judicial decisions, including Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund, citing the absence of a specific provision in Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for such refunds.2. Applicability of Binding Judicial Precedent and Principle of Stare Decisis:The Tribunal examined the principle of binding precedent and stare decisis, highlighting that judicial decisions, especially those of the Supreme Court, must be followed. The appellant relied on the decision in Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., where the Karnataka High Court allowed a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on the closure of the factory. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against this decision, which the appellant argued should be binding.3. Interpretation of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:The Tribunal analyzed Rule 5, which allows for the refund of CENVAT credit in specific circumstances, primarily related to exports. The appellant contended that there was no express prohibition against granting refunds on factory closure. However, the respondent argued that refunds require explicit statutory provisions, which were absent in this case.4. Applicability of the Decision in Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.:The Tribunal considered whether the decision in Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. was applicable. The appellant argued that this decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court, supported their claim. However, the Tribunal noted that subsequent decisions, including those of the Bombay High Court, had taken a different view, emphasizing the need for express statutory provisions for refunds.5. Impact of Amendments to Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules in 2012:The Tribunal discussed the amendments to Rule 5 in 2012, which restricted refunds to specific circumstances, primarily related to exports. The appellant's claim did not fall within these circumstances, and the Tribunal had to consider whether the pre-amendment provisions or the amended rule applied.6. Limitation Period for Filing a Refund Claim:The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the appellant's refund claim was barred by limitation. The appellant did not raise this issue, but the respondent argued that the claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.7. Application of the Doctrine of Merger and Article 141 of the Constitution:The Tribunal examined the doctrine of merger and Article 141, which mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts. The Tribunal considered whether the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP in Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. constituted a binding precedent.8. Revisiting the Legality of the Issue After the Supreme Court's Decision:The Tribunal debated whether it could revisit the legality of the issue after the Supreme Court's decision in Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that subsequent judicial pronouncements, including those of the Bombay High Court, had taken a different view, leading to the formation of a Larger Bench to resolve the conflicting decisions.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and directing the respondent to refund the unutilized CENVAT credit with applicable interest. The decision was based on the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., despite the divergent views in subsequent judicial decisions. The Tribunal emphasized the need to follow the highest court's decisions and provided relief to the appellant accordingly. However, the Member (Technical) dissented, arguing that the decision in Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. was not applicable and that the refund claim was barred by limitation, among other points. The matter was directed to be placed before the President for final resolution of the divergent opinions.
TaxTMI 