Commissioner, Central GST And Cx vs. M/S Ishan Copper PVT LTD
Held
The Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The Revenue's counsel fairly conceded that the issue was squarely covered against the Revenue by decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Union of India Vs. M/s Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (confirmed by the Supreme Court) and the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of C. Ex., Nasik Vs. Jain Vanguard Polybutlene Ltd. (also confirmed by the Supreme Court). These decisions specifically observed and held that a dealer is entitled to a refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit upon the closure of their factory. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST and CX (Revenue) filed a Tax Appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenging an order dated 03/10/2017 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had allowed a refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit to M/s Ishan Copper Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) accumulated due to disproportionate duty rates on inputs and final products at the time of surrendering its Central Excise Registration. The Revenue's appeal raised two proposed questions of law concerning the CESTAT's reliance on a previous tribunal decision and the entitlement to refund upon closure of a factory.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CESTAT was correct in law to rely on the decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in M/s Shalu Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & S.T., Vapi, when the Revenue had filed an appeal against that decision before the Bombay High Court (which was pending)? The Revenue argued that the CESTAT erred by relying on a decision against which an appeal was pending before a higher court, implying the CESTAT's decision might be premature or inconsistent with potential future rulings. 2. Whether the CESTAT was correct in law in allowing the refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit accumulated due to disproportionate rate of duty on inputs and final products at the time of surrender of Central Excise Registration? The Petitioner argued that they were entitled to the refund of unutilized Cenvat credit upon closure of their factory, as supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The Revenue did not present any arguments against this specific point, having conceded the issue.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
C/TAXAP/643/2018 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 643 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ====================================== COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GST AND CX Versus M/S ISHAN COPPER PVT LTD ====================================== Appearance: MR NIRZAR S DESAI(2117) for the APPELLANT(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 06/07/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 2018:GUJHC:17698-DB
C/TAXAP/643/2018
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.