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 remands refund decision, considers unjust enrichment, impacts demand and penalty</h1> <h3>Ashu Organics (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I</h3> Ashu Organics (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I - TMI Issues involved:1. Refund claim rejection on the ground of time bar2. Demand of Cenvat Credit and penalty3. Appropriation of demand against sanctioned refund claimAnalysis:Issue 1: Refund claim rejection on the ground of time barThe appeal focused on a refund claim of Rs. 96,122, which was rejected due to being time-barred. The appellant argued that they had continuously corresponded with the department since June 15, 2009, expressing their intention to claim the refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant also mentioned their intention to take Cenvat Credit of the excess paid duty. The Tribunal found that the legitimate claim for refund was made on June 15, 2009, even though the formal refund application was filed later. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the refund without rejecting it on the grounds of being time-barred. The aspect of unjust enrichment was also highlighted for verification.Issue 2: Demand of Cenvat Credit and penaltyThe appeal also addressed the demand of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 96,122 and a penalty of an equal amount. The appellant had taken recredit for which the refund claim was filed. The Tribunal noted that if the refund is sanctioned, the demand and penalty in this appeal would not sustain.Issue 3: Appropriation of demand against sanctioned refund claimAnother issue involved the appropriation of the demand of Rs. 96,122 and penalty against a sanctioned refund claim. The Tribunal emphasized that once the refund matter is settled, the demand and penalty would not stand. The Tribunal remanded this issue along with the demand of Cenvat Credit and penalty for reconsideration by the original adjudicating authority based on the decision taken on the refund matter.In conclusion, the Tribunal found all three appeals to be interconnected. The decision on the refund claim would impact the other appeals related to demand of Cenvat Credit, penalty, and appropriation against the sanctioned refund claim. Therefore, all appeals were disposed of by way of remand for further consideration in light of the refund decision.
TaxTMI 