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>Importers entitled to cash refund of CVD and SAD paid after GST for pre-GST imports under AA and EPCG schemes</h1> <h3>CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF C.E. -AHMEDABAD-II</h3> CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF C.E. -AHMEDABAD-II - TMI Issues:Whether refund claim is admissible under Section 142 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 in lieu of CENVAT credit of CVD & SAD paid after the introduction of GST due to non-fulfillment of export obligations against goods imported duty-free prior to the introduction of GST.Detailed Analysis:1. Background and Facts:The case involved M/s Cadila Healthcare Ltd., now known as Zydus Lifesciences Ltd., engaged in manufacturing bulk drugs leviable to excise duty under the Central Excise Act. The appellants imported goods duty-free prior to the introduction of GST but could not fulfill export obligations, leading to payment of Customs duties post-GST introduction.2. Claim for Refund:The appellants paid CVD & SAD post-GST introduction but were unable to avail CENVAT credit under GST due to lack of specific provisions. They filed a refund claim under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the amount paid due to non-fulfillment of export obligations on goods imported before 01.07.2017.3. Orders and Appeals:The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim citing Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, stating that CVD and SAD were not duties prescribed under the Central Excise Act, and the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules did not allow refund in cash.4. Appellate Tribunal's Decision:The Tribunal considered precedents and held that the appellants were entitled to a refund under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 for CVD & SAD paid post-GST introduction. The Tribunal cited judgments like CCE v. Aculife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and the High Court of Gujarat's decision in a similar case, emphasizing the legal entitlement to cash refund for CENVAT credit of CVD & SAD.5. Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellants. The decision was based on the legal entitlement to a cash refund of CENVAT credit of CVD & SAD paid after 01.07.2017, in line with Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 and relevant judicial precedents.This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal issues, factual background, relevant provisions, orders, appeals, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal, providing a detailed understanding of the judgment.
TaxTMI 