Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Bengal Beverages Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX, Howrah Commissionerate (CESTAT Kolkata)
Appeal Number : Excise Appeal No. 76748 of 2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 24/02/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Bengal Beverages Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata)

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Aerated water and Fruit based drinks (in short ‘final products’) classifiable under Chapter- 22 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on payment of applicable excise duty. The Appellant operates under the Cenvat Credit Scheme and Sugar is one of the principal ingredients in the manufacture of their dutiable final product.

roceedings were initiated against the Appellant by a Show-cause Notice dated 02nd January 2018 proposing denial of refund of Cenvat Credit of Sugar Cess aggregating Rs.4,66,70,821/- claimed by the Appellant vide their refund application dated 25/09/2017 and submitted on 03/10/2017 before the office of the learned Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Dankuni Division, Howrah CGST & CX Commissionerate on the ground that Sugar Cess is not expressly stipulated as a levy on which credit can be taken under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The refund claim was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority vide the impugned Order-in-Original dated 11th June 2018.

CESTAT finds from the case records that the First Appellate Authority has rejected the part claim of Cenvat credit on the ground that a demand for recovery of such amount for the period August 2014 to June 2015 is pending adjudication by the learned Commissioner. We find that the issue in the said demand notice also relates to eligibility of Cenvat credit on sugar cess and when the same has already been decided in favour of the Appellant assessee, then the earlier demand notices become infructuous and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Further for the same period on the same issue, two demand notices cannot be sustained and hence we are of the view that the order of the learned First Appellate Authority needs to be modified to the above extent.

Thus in the instant case, the refund claim of the Appellant needs to be allowed.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031