Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Virgo Polymers India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Gst & Ce - Chennai ... on 19 December, 2023
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. III
Excise Appeal No. 40550 of 2022
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 44/2022 (CTA-II) dated 28.09.2022 passed by Commissioner of
GST and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Newry Towers, 2nd Floor, No. 2054/I, II Avenue, 12th Main
Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040)
M/s. Virgo Polymers India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
A-1-A, MMDA Industrial Complex,
Maraimalai Nagar,
Kancheepuram - 603 209.
Versus
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent
Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.
APPEARANCE:
For the Appellant : Shri Venkatachalam S., Advocate For the Respondent : Shri N. Satyanarayanan, Assistant Commissioner / A.R. CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) DATE OF HEARING : 26.09.2023 DATE OF DECISION : 19.12.2023 FINAL ORDER No. 41141 / 2023 Order:-
Excise Appeal No. E/40550/2022 has been filed by M/s. Virgo Polymers India Ltd., aggrieved by the Order-in- Appeal No. 44/2022 (CTA-II) dated 28.09.2022 passed by Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai-600040 who set aside impugned Order-in-Original No. 14 / 2020 dated 28.12.2020 passed by the Assistant 2 Excise Appeal No. 40550 /2022 Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Maraimalai Nagar Division, Chennai Outer Commissionerate granting refund of Rs.4,71,730/- under Section 142(3) of CGST Act,2017 while rejecting refund of Rs.33,696/- pertaining to SB Cess and KK Cess in the impugned order.
2.1 Brief facts are that the appellant, manufacturers of PP Woven Sacks and PP Fabric with Central Excise Registration No. AAACV8490QXM001 and Service Tax Registration No. AAACV8490QST001, had imported raw material, goods and machinery during May and June 2017. The transportation in vessel was arranged by the foreign shipping liner and freight charges were being paid on CIF basis. Service tax exemption for services provided by a person located in non-taxable territory to a person located in non- taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the customs station of clearances in India was withdrawn and Notification No. 15/2017-ST dated 13-04-2017 (effective from 23-04-2017) defined importer under Clause (26) of Section 2 of Customs Act, 1962 as a specified person liable to pay Service tax in case of services provided or agreed to be provided by a person located in non-taxable territory to a person located in non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the Customs Station of clearance in India. Further, vide Notification No. 16/2017-ST dated 13-04-2017 (effective from 23-04-2017), Service Tax rules have been amended wherein Rule 6(7CA) was inserted and option had been given to pay service tax for the services provided or agreed to be provided by a person located in non-taxable territory to a person located in non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the Customs station of clearance in India at the rate of 1.4% of CIF Value of such imported goods. Hence, as per the above legal provisions, the Appellant being an 3 Excise Appeal No. 40550 /2022 importer as per Section 2(26) of Customs Act, 1962 is liable to pay service tax for services provided or agreed to be provided by a person located in non-taxable territory to a person located in non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the Customs station of clearance in India.
2.2 During the course of audit of the accounts of the Appellant during March 2019, it was found that the Appellant had not paid service tax on such ocean freight paid on imports during May and June 2017 and on license fee paid to Government as recipient of service under Reverse charge basis. On being pointed out by the Internal Audit, GST & Central Excise, Audit II Commissionerate, Chennai, the Appellant has paid on 10.04.2019, Service tax of Rs.5,05,476/- on (i) Ocean freight on import of goods under CIF basis (Rs.4,91,026/-) (ii) On license fee paid to government under Reverse Charge basis (Rs.14,400/-).
2.3 The Appellant had filed a refund claim of Rs.5,05,426/- on 13.06.2019 in respect of above Service Tax payment, in terms of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority vide impugned Order-in-Original No. 130/2018-19-RF dated 05.08.2019. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) contending violation of principles of natural justice and the appellate Authority vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 336/2019 dated 29.11.2019 remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the refund claim afresh by following the principles of natural justice.
2.4 The department thereafter proceeded to issue a Show Cause Notice dated 27.12.2019 to the Appellant in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017 and vide Order-in-
4 Excise Appeal No. 40550 /2022Original No. 14/2020-RF dated 28.12.2020 sanctioned a refund of Rs.4,71,630/- in terms of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 while dis-allowing Rs.33,696/- being the amount paid towards Swach Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess.
2.5 Aggrieved, the department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Chennai who vide Order-in- Appeal No. 44/2022-ST dated 28.09.2022 assailed and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original granting refund to the Appellants and hence the Appeal before this forum.
3. The Ld. Advocate Shri Venkatachalam appeared and argued for the Appellant. It was submitted that the appellants filed refund claim dated 13.06.2019 for Rs.5,05,426/- which is pertaining to the input service tax credit available to the Appellants as per law and such amount was paid as directed by the internal audit party for which the Appellants are entitled to take input service tax credit as it is an input service.
3.1 It was further submitted that the Appellants could not take CENVAT Credit of the Service Tax amounts paid under reverse Charge Mechanism and there is no averment in the show cause notice that the Appellants are not entitled for such credit. The amendment regarding Service Tax on Ocean Freight was made in April 2017 and the Periods of dispute itself is only for May and June 2017. Hence the averments that the Appellants should have paid Service tax in time is not acceptable and in any event the Appellants would have paid Service tax only after 30.06.2017 and not before that. As the filing of the TRAN-1 was completed, the Appellants could not take credit of the same and therefore a refund claim was filed on 13.06.2019 pertaining to the 5 Excise Appeal No. 40550 /2022 CENVAT credit that could not be taken as credit by the Appellants.
3.2 It was contended that the appellants did not file refund of the Service tax amount paid but only for the amount available as credit to the appellants. Therefore the averment in Para 10 of the Show Cause Notice that the appellants have claimed refund of Service Tax amount paid under RCM is not correct.
3.3 The Ld. Advocate adverted to the Provisions of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 which reads as follows:
"Every claim for refund filed by the person before, on or after the appointed day, for refund of any amount of CENVAT credit, duty, tax, interest or any other amount paid under the existing law, shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything contrary contained under the provisions of the existing law other than the provisions of sub-section(2) of section 11 B of the central Excise Act,1944 ;
Provided that where any claim for refund of CENVAT credit is fully or partially rejected, the amount so rejected shall lapse."
Therefore it was asserted that the CGST Act, 2017 clearly provides for refund which has become due for payment after the appointed day in cash and the Appellants are entitled for refund of the input tax credit which the Appellants could not take. It was further contended that the provisions of Section 142(8)(a) of CGST Act, 2017 which was resorted to by the Appellate authority to reject the refund claim, deals with credit under GST of the amount paid and not refund of eligible credit which the Appellants could not take. Further, it was pointed out that Section 11B(2)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for refund of credit of duty paid on 6 Excise Appeal No. 40550 /2022 excisable goods used as inputs in accordance with the rules made or any notifications issued. Therefore the appellants were entitled for the refund.
3.4 It was submitted that the issue of payment of Ocean Freight under RCM was pending in various courts and the issue has been finally decided in favour of the Appellants. The Appellants also submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sal Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2020 (37) GSTL 3 (Guj.)] held that the provisions and notifications which levied service Tax on Ocean freight are ultravires and accordingly allowed the appeals of the parties and thus the demand of Service Tax on ocean freight under reverse charge mechanism is not legal and proper and accordingly the Appellants are not liable to pay the Service Tax on the same and thus the appellants are eligible for the refund of service Tax and interest paid. The department cannot retain the amount paid by an assessee without authority of law. Hence the demand made out by the Internal Audit is not sustainable in law and the payment is liable to be refunded.
3.5 The Ld. Advocate also pointed out that in various orders of the Hon'ble High Courts, it was held that the demand of service Tax on ocean freight was unsustainable. One such judgement has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence the demand itself is not sustainable in law and accordingly the refund is in order. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. Ganges International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry [2022 (66) GSTL 186 (Mad.)] has inter alia observed as follows:
"41. Merely because the transitional provisions have come into effect from 01.07.2017 and under 140(1) of the Act, persons like the Petitioners can make a claim only in respect of the credit which is already accrued as on 7 Excise Appeal No. 40550 /2022 30.06.2017 and these credit have come into the account of the Petitioners only subsequently, for which , claim under Section 140(1) could not have been made, the chance of making such an application to seek the refund or otherwise of such a credit which has subsequently accrued in the account for the petitioners, cannot be denied.
42. In view of the matter, this court feels that, in these kind of special situations, for which, the provision is not Section 142(3), no other provision is available. Therefore, this Court feels that , since it is a dire necessity, as these kind of situation necessarily to be met with by the legislation, for which this provision has been brought in the statute book, there can be no impediment for invoking Section 142(3) of the Act by invoking the Doctrine of Necessity'.
43. Normally, the theory of "Doctrine of Necessity' could be invoked when there is a dire necessity with regard to the forum, before whom, the issue has to be referred to and disposed and decided by such forum. Earlier the view was that, the same would apply only to judicial matters but in Mohapatra and Company and another Vs. State of Orissa and another 1985 (1)SCR 322, it was held that "
the doctrine of necessity applies not only to judicial matters but also to quasi-judicial and administrative matters"
3.6 The Appellants also submitted that the Hon'ble CESTAT on a similar issue involving rejection of refund claim by resorting to Section 142 (8)(a) of GST Act, 2017 in the case of M/s. Terex India (P) Ltd., Hosur Vs. Commissioner of GST, Salem [2022 (63) GSTL 238 (Tri. Chennai)] has allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
3.7 The Ld. Counsel has also relied on the following judicial pronouncements:
(i) Circor Flow Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise [2022 (59) GSTL 63 (Tri.-Chennai)].
(ii) Indo Tooling Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise [2022 (61) GSTL 595 (Tri.-Del.)].
(iii) Chryso India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & GST [2021 (55) GSTL 159 (Tri.-Del.)].
(iv) Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2020 (41) GSTL 292 (Guj.)].8 Excise Appeal No. 40550 /2022
(v) Cosmol Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat [2021 (55) GSTL 390 (Guj.)]
(vi) Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & CGST, Indore [2022 (58) GSTL 315 (Tri.-Del)].
(vii) Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
[2022 (61) GSTL 257 (SC)].
(viii) Terex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner GST & Central Excise [2022 (63) GSTL 238 (Tri.-Chennai)].
(ix) Sal Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2020 (37) GSTL 3 (Guj.)].
(x) Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Vs. Ganges International Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (68) GSTL 134 (Mad.)].
(xi) Shree Mahesh Oil Products Vs. Union of India [2023 (68) GSTL 126 (Raj.)].
(xii) Commercial Taxed Officer, Rajasthan GST Department Vs. Shree Mahesh Oil Products [2023 (68) GSTL 113 (SC)].
(xiii) Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI [2022 (65) GSTL 261 (Guj.)].
(xiv) ADI Enterprises Vs. Union of India [2022 (64) GSTL 392 (Guj.)].
(xv) Union of India Vs. MCPI Pvt. Ltd.
[2022 (64) GSTL 431 (Cal.)].
3.8 The Appellants also filed a copy of the judgement
pronounced by the Hon'ble High Court dated 28.03.2023 in WP No. 8809/2020 and in WP No. 15398/2021 praying to direct the Hon'ble Court for refund of Service Tax paid on Ocean Freight and the Hon'ble High Court inter alia held that such refund applications shall be disposed of in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT (SC)], within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
9 Excise Appeal No. 40550 /20224. The Ld. Authorised representative Shri N. Satyanarayanan appeared for the department and reiterated the findings in the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority.
5. Heard both sides and carefully considered the submissions and evidences on record.
6. The main issues to be decided in this appeal relates to:-
(i) Whether Service Tax demand made on Ocean freight paid is justified?
(ii) Whether the appellants are eligible for sanction of refund of Service Tax paid on Ocean freight prior to 01.07.2017, under Section 142(3) of CGST Act,2017, and Whether the said refund becomes inapplicable in view of section 148(8)(a) of CGST Act?
7. Whether Service Tax demand on Ocean freight is sustainable?
7.1.1 It is not in dispute that the appellants have been called upon to pay service tax on Ocean Freight Paid on imports during May and June 2017. I find from the facts of the case that the Appellant pursuant to Audit findings have voluntarily paid the Service Tax on Ocean Freight along with interest.
7.1.2 The issue of Service Tax on Ocean Freight was the subject matter of dispute in the case of M/s. Asiatic Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of CGST Alwar [2022 (67) GSTL 473( Tri.-Del.)] and the relevant portion of the judgement worth quoting has been extracted hereunder:
10 Excise Appeal No. 40550 /2022" 11. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the transaction value for Customs duty and Excise duty (CVD), includes the Ocean Freight , and accordingly I hold that the appellant has suffered the double taxation, by again paying the service tax on the Ocean Freight , as demanded by the Revenue"
Consequently, it was held that the Appellant was entitled to refund claim of Service Tax along with interest and penalty paid.
7.1.3 Similar views were expressed in the case of CHRYSO INDIA Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & GST, ALWAR [2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 159 (Tri. - Del.)].
7.1.4 In obedience to the judicial discipline, I have to hold that the recovery of Service Tax on Ocean freight is not legally justified and hence the demand is not maintainable.
7.2 Whether the appellants are eligible for sanction of refund of Service Tax paid on Ocean Freight and on licence fee paid to Government under Reverse Charge basis paid for the period prior to 01.07.2017, under Section 142(3) of CGST Act,2017 and whether the said refund becomes inapplicable in view of section 148(8)(a) of CGST Act?
7.2.1 I find that the refund claim has been rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) by resorting to Section 142(8)(a) of GST Act, 2017 . I find that similar issue was analyzed by the Tribunal regarding the issue of sanction of refund of Service Tax paid during the GST era in INDO TOOLING Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, INDORE 11 Excise Appeal No. 40550 /2022 [2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 595 (Tri. - Del.)] wherein it was held as follows:
"8. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that payment of service tax including the cess relating to the period prior to 30-6-2017, paid in the year 2018 during the GST regime, amounts to payment in accordance with law as the same has been paid on the insistence by the Department-audit objection. I further find that the demand pursuant to audit is also bad as the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit being a manufacturer of dutiable items, and as such the situation is revenue neutral. Further, the appellant under the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules was entitled to Cenvat credit of the said amount. Further, in view of the provisions of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, provides that every claim for refund filed by any person before, on or after the appointed day, for refund of any amount of Cenvat credit, duty, tax, interest or any other amount paid under the existing law, shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, 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 (unjust enrichment). Further, Section 142(8)(a) provides that in pursuance of an assessment or adjudication proceedings instituted, whether before, on or after the appointed day, under the existing law, any amount of tax, interest, fine or penalty becomes recoverable from the person, the same shall, unless recovered under the existing law, be recovered as an arrear of tax under the CGST Act and the amount so recovered shall not be admissible as input tax credit under this Act. Further, sub-section (5) of Section 142 of the CGST Act provides that every claim filed by a person after the appointed day for refund of tax paid under the existing law in respect of services not provided shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (unjust enrichment).
9. Thus, from a conjoint reading of sub-sections (3), (5) and (8)(a) of the CGST Act, it is evident that an assessee is entitled to claim refund of service tax under RCM paid after the appointed day under the existing law and such claim has to be disposed of according to the provisions of the existing law. As the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit of the said amount of Rs. 9,85,827/-, which is now no longer available due to GST regime, they are entitled to refund of the said amount."
7.2.2 I also find that in Appeal No. ST/40095/2021-SM pertaining to TEREX INDIA Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GST & C.E., Salem in [2022 (63) GSTL 238(Tri-Chennai)], this Tribunal on a similar issue has held that :
12 Excise Appeal No. 40550 /2022"6.2 The refund claim has been rejected resorting to Section 142(8)(a) of GST Act, 2017. The provision has already been noticed in earlier paragraphs. The department is of the view that the payment made by the appellant is consequent to an assessment/adjudication proceeding and therefore, when recovered as an arrears of tax, the appellant is not admissible for the input tax credit under the GST Act, 2017. On bare perusal of Section 142(8), it can be seen that this sub-section (8) provides for recovery of arrears of tax after the implementation of GST Act, 2017. It deals with the provisions for assessment/adjudication proceedings that are carried out under the erstwhile law after introduction of GST. The section states that in such proceedings for recovery of arrears, the assessee will not be getting the benefit of any input credit for adjustment under GST Act, 2017. In the present case, there is no credit that requires to be adjusted to the GST Act, 2017.
The entire tax paid is claimed as credit under the existing law. The sub-section states that input tax credit will not be available under GST Act. It does not say that credit is not eligible under existing law (erstwhile law). This means in consequent to recovery of arrears in assessment/adjudication proceedings no input credit can be availed under GST Act, 2017. To be more clear, if there are any arrears to be recovered under the existing law, the same can be recovered by invoking the transitional provisions of the GST Act, however, input tax credit will not be admissible under the GST Act. The ingredients of Section 142(8)(a) is as under :-
(a) Amount of tax is recoverable consequent to an assessment or adjudication proceedings;
(b) Such amount has not been recovered under the existing law; (erstwhile law)
(c) Such amount can be recovered as an arrear of tax under CGST Act, 2017;
(d) On the amount so recovered, input tax credit will not be admissible under the CGST Act, 2017.
6.3 Further, as rightly argued by the Learned Counsel for the appellants, the above provision deals with recovery of arrears under the erstwhile law after implementation of CGST Act, 2017. In the present case, there is no assessment/adjudication tax as contemplated under the provisions of the erstwhile law. The appellant has paid the tax when pointed out by the Audit Officers. Such payment does not fall under recovery of arrears of tax by an assessment or adjudication proceedings. The sub-section (8) to Section 142 only means that after assessment or adjudication proceedings if an assessee pays the tax so determined, he cannot claim the benefit of availment of credit under the CGST Act, 2017.
6.4 Section 142(3) is the transitional provision for claim of refund after the introduction of GST Act, 2017. It says that refund claims of any amount paid under the erstwhile law have to be disposed according to the provisions of the erstwhile law and the amount has to be paid in cash. The appellants have paid the tax under the erstwhile law. In the present case, the claim is only for refund and not proceedings for assessment or adjudication. In such a scenario, only sub-section (3) of Section 142 will be attracted. Rejection of the refund claim by 13 Excise Appeal No. 40550 /2022 referring to sub-section (8) of Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017 is misplaced. For these reasons, rejection of refund is unjustified "
7.2.3 Similar views were held by this Tribunal in ITCO INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM [2023 (70) GSTL 76(Tri-Chennai)] wherein it was held that "11. From the narration of facts, it can be seen that Department has rejected the claims invoking Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The said provision has already been reproduced above. The Department is of the view that credit is not eligible as appellant has paid the duties only after issuing a demand notice. On perusal of the alleged demand notice, it is merely in the nature of an intimation letter and has not been issued invoking any provisions of Customs law or Excise law. Further, in such intimation also, there is no allegation of any fraud, collusion or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. There is no evidence placed before me to establish that the duties were paid after adjudication and rendering a finding of fraud, collusion or suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. In such circumstances, the credit cannot be denied. I hold that the appellant is eligible for credit of CVD and SAD paid by them. The Tribunal in the case of Circor Flow Technologies (supra) and Mithila Drugs Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had analysed a similar issue. In M/s. Mithila Drugs Pvt. Ltd., the facts are identical to that of the instant case. The relevant paragraphs read as under :
"5.6 Learned Counsel further relies on the precedent ruling of this Tribunal in Flexi Caps and Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Indore - 2021 (9) TMI 917-CESTAT, New Delhi, wherein also pursuant to demand of service tax under reverse charge mechanism after 30-6-2017, for transaction related prior to the said date (1-7-2017), this Tribunal held that as the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, which is not now available due to GST regime, is entitled to refund under section 142 read with Rule 146 of the CGST Act.
6. Learned Authorised Representative Sh. Mahesh Bhardwaj appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order.
7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the payment of CVD and SAD subsequently during GST regime, for the imports made prior to 30-6-2017 is not disputed under the advance authorisation scheme. It is also not disputed that the appellant have paid the CVD and SAD in August, 2018 by way of regularisation on being so pointed out by the Revenue Authority. Further, I find that the Court below have erred in observing in the impugned order, that without producing proper records of duty paid invoices etc. in manufacture of dutiable final product, refund cannot be given. I further find that refund of CVD and SAD in question is allowable, as credit is no 14 Excise Appeal No. 40550 /2022 longer available under the GST regime, which was however available under the erstwhile regime of Central Excise prior to 30-6-2017. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to refund under the provisions of Section 142(3) and (6) of the CGST Act.
8. Accordingly, I direct the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to grant refunds to the appellant of the amount of SAD & CVD as reflected in the show cause notices and also in the orders-in- appeal. Such refund shall be granted within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of order along with interest under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. The impugned orders are set aside."
7.3 The Appellant has also referred to the Hon'ble High Court of Madras decision in Writ Petitions Nos. 528, 1092 & 1160 of 2019 in the case of M/s Ganges International Private Limited, Puduchery Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem I Division, on similar issue of sanction of refund in terms of Section 142(3), has inter-alia observed as reproduced in Para 3.5 above.
8. After appreciating the facts and evidences on record as well as applying the principles of law laid in the above decisions, I am of the view that the rejection of refund claims cannot be justified. In view of the above findings, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is hereby allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per the law.
(Order pronounced in open court on 19.12.2023) Sd/-
(VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MK