Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 14 February, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/1218/08 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CEX/GOA/MP/48/2008 dt. 4.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax ) M/s. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. : Appellant VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Panaji (Goa.) : Respondent
Appearance Shri Darshan Ranawat, C.A. for Appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 14/02/2018 Date of pronouncement : 28/02/2018 ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair The facts of the case are that the appellant had purchased the goods namely Pontoon with Spuds from M/s. Dempo Engineering Ltd., Goa on payment of duty. There was a dispute of classification of the goods, on settlement of the classification dispute though arose, an excess payment of duty was made for which refund claim was filed by the supplier M/s. Dempo Engineering Ltd., Goa as well as by M/s. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. The appellant while processing of the refund of M/s. Dempo Engineering Ltd. had withdrawn their refund claim thereafter the refund claim filed by M/s. Dempo Engineering Ltd. was disposed of by sanctioning the refund but credited into the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellant again approached the department for refund of the said in amount in response the same Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-I, Panaji Goa vide letter dt. 16.5.2008 written a letter to the appellant whereby it was conveyed that there is no application pending for the claim of refund with the department. The appellant filed an appeal against the said letter dt. 16.5.2008 before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal, therefore the present appeal.
2. Shri Darshan Ranavat, Ld. Chartered Accountant, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that since the refund claim was due to the appellant they were entitled for the refund. Hence the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered and directed for sanction of the refund.
3. Shri A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of record, we find that though the appellant had filed refund claim but the same was withdrawn and subsequently no further refund claim was filed. In this position when no refund claim is pending with the department the question of sanctioning refund claim does not arise. Therefore we do not find any fault in the order of both the lower authorities, accordingly, the impugned order is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant has liberty to file a fresh application for refund which may be disposed by the revenue in accordance with law.
(Pronounced in court on 28/02/2018)
(C.J.Mathew)
Member (Technical)
(Ramesh Nair)
Member (Judicial)
SM.
3
E/1218/08