Case Law Details
Hivelm Industries Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
It is not in dispute that the deemed export did not attract any Excise Duty and hence, it is not the duty of the appellant / taxpayer to repeatedly plead before the authorities that the project in which it was involved was a deemed export. Moreover, the fact that the appellant filed its refund claim immediately, though before a wrong forum, itself proves the bona fides of the appellant and hence, the same establishes the fact that there was an application for refund claim within the limitation period prescribed in the statute, though before a wrong forum.
The purchase order coupled with the tax invoice also reflect the above position, which, according to me, sufficiently establish the fact that the duty payment, which was not required to be made, but still having been paid, could only be under protest.
In addition to the above, the main contractor itself has issued a disclaimer certificate wherein it has been clearly and categorically mentioned that the appellant has paid the duty, but the same is not refunded to the appellant and that it has no objection for the appellant to claim refund of the duty it has paid, which, according to me, takes care of the Revenue’s doubts as to the non-mentioning of the appellant’s name in the project certificate.
Further, when the duty itself was not liable to be paid by virtue of Notification No. 06/2006 (supra), the argument that the appellant was required to make the payment holds no water, as long as the Revenue does not suspect the involvement of the appellant as a subcontractor.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
