Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Kopran Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 February, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II Appeal No. E/85507/15 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CD/74/RGD/2014 dated 24.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II). For approval and signature: Honble Shri S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== M/s Kopran Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II Respondent Appearance: Ms. Anisha Mandhania, Advocate for Appellant Shri V.K. Agarwal, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI S.S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 26.02.2016 Date of Decision: 26.02.2016 ORDER NO. Per: Raju
The appellant, an exporter and manufacturer of medicaments, was availing CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs used in manufacture of final products. The appellant claimed refund of Rs.91,66,073/- under Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012. The said refund claim was rejected by the original adjudicating authority and by the first appellate authority. The appellant is in appeal against the order of first appellate authority. The first appellate authority rejected the refund claim as the appellant failed to follow the conditions of Sr. No. H of Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur 2015-TIOL-2076-CESTAT-MUM.
3. Learned AR relies on the impugned order.
4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the issue stands settled by the aforementioned order of the Tribunal. In the aforesaid order, the following has been observed: -
3. The appellants are in appeal before us against the said order of Commissioner (Appeals). The short question to be decided is if the refund can be granted to the appellant's when they have debited the amount not on the date of filing refund claim but on a later date. It is seen that the conditions prescribed in the notification having met although on a later date. The failure to debit on the date of filing the refund claim is not such a lapse that it would debar the appellants from the refund. On the day of debiting the CENVAT account they have fulfilled the conditions of the notification. In that event they become entitled to refund on that date. In view of above the impugned order is set aside, the appeal is allowed with consequential benefit. The matter is remanded for the limited matter of verification of arithmetical accuracy of refund. The same is directed to be completed within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order and refund issued. In the instant case, the only violation alleged in the impugned order is failure to debit the CENVAT Credit account before filing the refund claim. Since this issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in Court) (S.S. Garg) (Raju) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical) Sinha 2 Appeal No. E/85507/15