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>Section 11BB rebate refunds must be paid in cash, not credited to CENVAT account, applying Section 142(3) CGST Act</h1> <h3>Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier known as Unisule Pvt. Ltd.,) Versus The Union of India, Principal Commissioner RA and Ex-officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India Mumbai, The Commissioner of Central Tax, & Central Excise (Appeals), Raigad, The Assistant Commissioner, Maritime Rebate, CGST & Central Excise, Belapur.</h3> Bombay HC held that refund of rebate amount under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 must be paid in cash rather than credited to CENVAT account. ... Refund of rebate amount with interest u/s 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Applicability of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Sub-Section (3) of Section 142 of the Act very clearly says “any amount eventually accruing shall be paid in cash”. In the circumstances, it is opined that respondents ought to have directed the sanctioning authority to refund the amount of duty refundable to petitioner in cash instead of credit in CENVAT account, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amount shall be paid together with accumulated interest in accordance with law within four weeks of this order being uploaded. Petition disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Quashing and setting aside impugned orders.2. Refund of rebate amount with interest u/s 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. Applicability of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.Summary: The petitions sought to quash and set aside impugned orders dated 7.9.2018 and 16.7.2020 in WP/729/2021, and orders dated 25.7.2018, 26.7.2018, 3.8.2018, and 24.6.2020 in WP/1228/2021. The petitioner also sought a refund of Rs. 10,48,11,737/- and Rs. 21,92,162/- respectively, with interest u/s 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner challenged the orders directing re-credit of excess duty paid in the CENVAT credit account. The petitioner argued that u/s 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, any refund payable post-GST regime should be paid in cash, as the CENVAT regime had ended. The respondents contended that the amount paid by the petitioner was a voluntary deposit and should be returned in the manner it was initially paid. Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, states that any refund of CENVAT credit, duty, tax, interest, or any other amount paid under the existing law should be paid in cash. The court found that the petitioner's claim falls under this provision, and the amount should be refunded in cash. The court ruled that the respondents should have directed the sanctioning authority to refund the amount in cash instead of crediting it to the CENVAT account. The court made the rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of both petitions. The amount, along with accumulated interest, should be paid within four weeks of the order being uploaded. The petitioners are not required to communicate this order to the respondents as they were represented by advocates.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
