M/S Abb Global Industries And vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal available under the Central Excise Rules (Appeals) 1982. The Court noted the respondents' submission that the petitioner should approach the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a memorandum of appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the application for condonation of delay, acknowledging that the petitioner had been prosecuting the matter before the High Court since April 27, 2018. The Appellate Authority was also directed to decide the appeal within four months of receiving the memorandum of appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the refund claim itself.

Facts

M/s. ABB Global Industries and Services Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging an order-in-original dated March 12, 2018, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax. The petitioner also sought a direction to sanction a refund claim of Rs. 10,85,91,827/- filed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The respondents, Union of India and tax authorities, contended that the petitioner had not exhausted the remedy of appeal under the Central Excise Rules (Appeals) 1982. They further stated that due to the implementation of GST from July 1, 2017, the Adjudicating Authority could not verify the debit of the refund amount from ST3 returns, leading to the rejection of the refund claim on grounds of non-fulfilment of conditions under Notification No. 27/2012-CE NT dated June 18, 2012.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal under the Central Excise Rules (Appeals) 1982? The petitioner sought to quash an order-in-original and direct the sanction of a refund claim. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal available under the Central Excise Rules (Appeals) 1982. They contended that the Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim due to the transition to GST and the inability to verify ST3 returns, and that the petitioner should approach the Commissioner (Appeals) for relief. The petitioner's arguments are not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but their action of filing a writ petition implies a challenge to the order and a desire for the refund.