The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the Order in favour of Usha Internationals as the department had failed to submit the date of communication of the order to calculate the limitation period.
The Department filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal filed by the Department on the ground of limitation and ruled in favour of the assessee.
It was submitted that against the order of sanctioning the refund of SAD paid by the respondents, the Department had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was rejected observing that there is a delay in passing the review order by the reviewing authority.
It was submitted that the date of communication of the Order-in-Original ought to have been taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) for computing the period of limitation of three months whereas, the Commissioner (Appeals) computed the limitation from the date of passing the Order-in-Original.
The Department had issued Show Cause Notice proposing to recover the erroneously granted refund. The appellant then filed an application before the Settlement Commission for settling the issue of payment of the differential duty of SAD along with interest. The Settlement Commission initially rejected the said request of the appellant.
On appeal, the High Court remanded the matter to the Settlement Commission. The request for settlement was allowed and the appellant paid the refund amount along with interest. Therefore, the amount sanctioned as a refund has already been repaid to the Government. It was submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erroneously dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
It was evident that the Department had not provided the details of the date on which the Order-in-Original was received by the reviewing authority. The Department has not been able to establish why they had not furnished the date of communication of the order before the Commissioner (Appeals).
A two-member bench comprising Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, (Judicial Member) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, (Technical Member) held that the refund amount had already been settled by making payment from the side of the appellant along with interest. The bench dismissed the appeal as a result.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
