M/S. Vardhman Industries Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Chandigarh-Ii

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal15 April 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/51228/2014-EX(SM)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority has no power to adjust a refund sanctioned to an assessee against a pending demand of service tax and penalty where that demand is the subject of an appeal in which the Tribunal has granted waiver of pre-deposit on the footing that the tax and interest have already been paid, so that no amount is due from the assessee at the time of adjustment.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIPRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IIAppeal No. E/51228/2014-EX(SM)

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. JAL-Excus-000-APP-235-13-14 dated 28.11.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Vardhman Industries Ltd. .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.T. Chandigarh-II .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Vikrant Kackaria, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 15.04.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 51399/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The facts of the case are that the amount of refund sanctioned to the appellant and same has been adjusted against the pending demand of Service Tax and penalty by the Adjudicating Authority.

2. Heard the parties.

3. As against the order of demand of service tax interest and penalty the appellant has already filed appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal has granted waiver of pre deposit of penalty on the premise that appellant has paid Service Tax along with interest vide stay order dated 16.12.2014. Therefore, no amount is due against the appellant. In these circumstances, I hold that the Adjudicating Authority have no authority to adjust the amount pertaining to service tax against the refund on excess duty.

4. In these circumstances, impugned order is set aside the Adjudicating Authority has directed to grant the refund claim to the appellant within 30 days of the receipt of this Order. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

E/51228/2014-EX(SM)

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