Case Law Details
M/s. ACC Limited (Unit: Madukkarai Cement Works) Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
It is clear that the litigation with regard to the demand raised in the Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2009 has continued till 27.02.2018 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore has set aside the demand, interest and penalties confirmed in the Order-in-Original. Though after the first adjudication and consequent appeal (whereby the demand was set aside), the appellant ought to have filed the refund claim within a period of one year, since the Department has adjudicated the Show Cause Notice for a second time and confirmed the demand again, it cannot be said that the refund claim filed by the appellant is time-barred. In fact, the refund claim is filed within one month after passing of the second Order-in-Appeal which is dated 27.02.2018. The claim having been made within one year from the date on which the demand was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) finally, I am of the view that the rejection of refund claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not justified. Moreover, the amount having been paid as duty pursuant to the Show Cause Notice, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
The appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of its claim for refund of duty of Rs. 7,54,303/- and interest.
2. Brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement. During the course of manufacturing cement, various kinds of capital goods are used of which some lose their efficiency with continuous usage. These used capital goods become unfit for further use and they are discarded as worn out capital goods and sold as waste and scrap. As these goods are sold as waste and scrap, the appellants were of the view that no duty is payable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
