Sanmar Matrix Metals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST And Central Excise (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that appropriation of refund made during pendency of an appeal is construed as payment of duty under protest and hence period of limitation doesn’t apply in such case. Accordingly, appeal stand allowed and order is set aside.
Facts- The appellant was an assessee under the provisions of the “Central Excise Act, 1944” and migrated into GST regime after the same came into force. The appellant availed CENVAT credit, in respect of excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on input services under the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
A show cause notice dated 03.06.2011 was issued proposing to deny CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input service during the period May 2010 to March 2011. The proposal was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant challenged the same before the Tribunal.
The appellant, in the meantime, had filed an application under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 seeking for refund of excise duty paid on goods cleared for export. The application was processed and refund was sanctioned by order dated 06.05.2014. However, the rebate sanctioned was appropriated against the demand arising out of the Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2012.
