Excise Appeal No. 2 of 2015. Case: The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Vs Automobile Corporation of Goa Limited. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Excise Appeal No. 2 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: C.A. Ferreira, Advocate and For Respondents: Jitendra Jain and D. Pangam, Advocates |
| Judges | F. M. Reis and K. L. Wadane, JJ. |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35(G) |
| Judgement Date | January 19, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
F. M. Reis, J.
-
Heard Shri C.A. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.
-
The above Appeal filed under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the Order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), whereby the Appeal preferred by the Appellant/Revenue came to be rejected.
-
Briefly the facts of the case as found from the records are that the Respondents filed twenty quarterly refund claims during the period 05.03.2007 to 07.08.2010 for the exports made during the period February, 2006 to March 2010. In these refund claims, the Respondents claimed refund of cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs (excluding chasis credit) for an aggregate amount of Rs. 28,89,30,788/-. The Central Excise Department issued separate Show Cause Notice for each of the refund claim proposing to reject the aforesaid twenty refund claims on following ground:-(a) The Respondents are availing Duty Drawback; (b) Accumulation of credit is not due to export goods; and (c) that the goods were cleared under CT-1 certificate. The aforesaid show cause notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner by passing various Orders in original and rejected the refund claims by confirming the allegations made in the Show Cause notices. Some of the claims were rejected on the grounds which were not even raised in the show cause notice. Thereafter, the Respondents preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Goa. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order in Appeal dated 10.06.2008 set aside all the objections raised in the notices and remanded the matter for quantification of claim by verifying the relevant documents. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner passed an Order rejecting the refund claims without referring to the Orders issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds raised in the earlier Orders. The Respondents filed an Appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) against the aforesaid Orders which the Commissioner disposed of by an Order dated 20.01.2010 rejecting the Appeals preferred by the Respondents by taking an altogether new and sole ground that the Respondents are not the manufacturer and, therefore, cannot file refund claim under Rule 5. But, however, the Commissioner(Appeals) gave up the objections raised by the Department in the Show Cause notices and Orders in the original. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial