In a significant ruling, a two-judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain, while dealing with an appeal relating to refund and interest on central excise duty worth Rs. 54 lacs, rejected the department’s plea of transfer of jurisdiction due to the GST regime.
The respondent/Assessee having its registered office at Sonepat had applied for central excise duty along with interest before the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division Panipat. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division Panipat vide order dated 21st June, 2017 allowed and sanctioned refund of Rs.54.00 lacs to the Assessee however claim w.r.t. interest was rejected. The assessee took the matter before the CESTAT wherein it was held that the Assessee entitled to interest on delayed refund from the date of deposit till its realization thereof.
Before the High Court, the Revenue filed an appeal raising a question w.r.t. the change in the jurisdiction of the Authorities after the coming of new CGST regime and contended that the respondent/Assessee impleaded wrong authorities for the claim of refund and interest.
The two-judge bench noted that the claim for refund in the present case was filed on 6th January, 2016 which was returned and again filed on 19th April, 2017.
Section 142 of the Act deals with miscellaneous transitional provisions including the claim for refund filed by any person before, on or after the appointed day for refund of any amount of CENVAT credit, duty, tax, interest or any other amount paid under the existing law.
Analysing the provision, the bench held that “Section 142 of the Act, when read with Section 2(48) of the Act, is a complete answer to the plea raised by the appellant qua the issue of jurisdiction. The provision explicitly provides that every claim of refund shall be dealt with under the existing law i.e. Central Excise Act, 1944, and not by the provisions of the Act. Thus the plea of transfer of jurisdiction due to GST regime is not available to the appellant.”
While concluding, the bench added that “It is not disputed that the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Central Excise Act, 1944 are pari materia and, therefore, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) shall be applicable to the present case.”
Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula vs M/s Riba Textiles Limited
CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 178
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
