Cce, Salem vs M/S. G R Granites
- CitationAppeal No.27 to 30/2014 ST dated 22.1.2014 and passed by the Commissioner of Central Exc
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the adjudicating authority passes an order and the department, within three months of that order, obtains an order from the Reviewing Authority and then files its appeal in accordance with sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appeal is within limitation, and the Commissioner (Appeals) errs in dismissing it as time-barred. Where the adjudicating authority has rightly examined an exporter's eligibility for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on inward transportation, and has correctly computed the taxable turnover and the service tax paid on transport, the refund sanctioned on that computation is not open to challenge on merits where the computation is undisputed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.27 to 30/2014 ST dated 22.1.2014 and passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem)
CCE, Salem Appellant
Vs.
M/s. G R Granites Respondent
Appearance
Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing / Decision: 30.09.2015
Final Order No. 41303-41306 / 2015
None present for the respondent.
2. Revenue has come in appeal with the precise submission that Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed the appeal of Revenue holding that its appeal was belatedly filed beyond the limitation prescribed by section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. The submission of Revenue is acceptable for the reason that the date on which the adjudicating authority has passed order, within three months thereof Revenue has obtained order of Reviewing Authority and come in appeal in accordance with sanction of law under sub-section (2) and (3) of section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, following the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of CCE, Delhi III Vs. M/s. Kap Cones 2015-TIOL-149-SC-CX, Revenue succeeds on limitation.
4. Learned adjudicating authority sanctioned refund of the following amount:-
S. No. Order-in-Original Appeal No. Refund Amount
1.
2/2013 dated 16.5.2013 ST/41388/2014 Rs.14,799/-
2. 3/2013 dated 16.5.2013 ST/41389/2014 Rs.60,478/-
3. No. 21/2013 dated 18.7.2013 ST/41394/2014 Rs.31,095/-
4. No. 22/2013 dated 18.7.2013 ST/41395/2014 Rs.29,322/-
5. The refund arose on the ground of unutilized CENVAT credit on the inward transportation. Learned adjudicating authority has examined about the eligibility of the refund to the respondent. He has found out that the respondent being an exporter, CENVAT credit remained unutilized. He has appropriately calculated the taxable turnover to examine the service tax paid on transporter. There appears no dispute on the computation. Therefore, even on merit Revenue has no case for which all the four appeals are dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free