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>Pre-deposits from credit ledgers valid under Central Excise Act</h1> <h3>M/s. Saphire Cables & Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Tenormac Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Netizen Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Reliance Infocomm Engineering Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE, Belapur</h3> M/s. Saphire Cables & Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Tenormac Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Netizen Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Reliance Infocomm ... Issues Involved:1. Legality of admission and registration of appeals after pre-deposit through debit of DRC-03 account.2. Compliance with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. Validity of pre-deposit made through the electronic credit ledger under the GST regime.Summary:Issue 1: Legality of Admission and Registration of AppealsThe Tribunal addressed the preliminary issue of whether the appeals could be admitted and registered after the pre-deposit was made via the DRC-03 account under the GST regime. The learned Authorised Representative argued that this method did not comply with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which are prerequisites for entertaining any appeal.Issue 2: Compliance with Section 83 of the Finance Act and Section 35F of the Central Excise ActThe Tribunal examined Rule 11 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which allows the Tribunal to accept a memorandum of appeal even if it is defective, provided the appellant rectifies the defects within a specified time. The Tribunal emphasized that the acceptance or rejection of an appeal memorandum requires a judicial order, not an administrative instruction. The Tribunal noted that the admission and registration of appeals do not preclude deciding their fitness for hearing on merit.Issue 3: Validity of Pre-deposit through Electronic Credit LedgerThe Respondent-Department argued that pre-deposits made via the electronic credit ledger (DRC-03) were invalid, citing judgments and a CBIC Circular clarifying that such pre-deposits do not comply with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Appellant countered that the pre-deposit mode was proper under Section 174 of the CGST Act, which preserves rights and obligations under the old Acts. The Tribunal noted that the pre-deposit aims to prevent frivolous appeals and should not be disputed based on whether it is from cash or credit balance.The Tribunal observed that the pre-deposits in question were either adjusted against payments made during investigations or from credit ledgers with surplus CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal concluded that the CGST Act's commencement does not affect proceedings under the old Acts, and thus, the pre-deposit mode was valid. The Tribunal also highlighted that the restrictive provision in Section 41(2) of the CGST Act had been deleted, and the CBIC Circular issued post-appeal filing should not apply retrospectively.Order:The Tribunal ruled that pre-deposits made from electronic credit ledgers comply with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The registration of appeals by the Registry was deemed valid, and the appeals were admitted for hearing. The Tribunal scheduled early hearing applications for 30.08.2023.(Order pronounced in the open court on 07.07.2023)
TaxTMI 