Page 189 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] ETRANS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. COMMR. OF CGST & C. EX., BBSR, KOLKATA 867

claim in respect of Special Additional Duty paid at the time of assessment of Bill
of Entry. The refund was claimed on the ground that the same was not payable
in terms of Notification No. 21/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012. The refund claim was
rejected being time-bar.
2. Shri M. Pandya, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appel-
lant submits that the appellant had applied for rectification of Bill of Entry under
Section 149 read with Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since, no response
was given by the department they filed the refund application. Since, their appli-
cation under Section 149 and read with Section 154 has not been disposed of. The
refund claim cannot be said to be time-bar.
3. Shri Sanjiv Kinker, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on be-
half of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order.
4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. I find that the appel-
lants contention is that the refund cannot be said to time-barred, for the reason
that they have filed an application for rectification of the Bill of Entry under Sec-
tion 149 read with Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962, and the same has not been
disposed of which compelled the appellant to file the refund claim. Therefore,
considering the application under Section 149 the refund cannot be held as time-
barred. We find that the department has not given any response to their applica-
tion under Section 149 which is directly related to the present refund matter. In
this position, I am of the view that the department must first dispose of the ap-
plication of the appellant filed under Section 149 read with Section 154 and
thereafter, should reprocess the refund claim.
5. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter
to the adjudicating authority to first decide the application under Section l49,
thereafter, reprocess the refund claim. Appeal is allowed by way of remand to
the adjudicating authority.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open Court)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 867 (Tri. - Kolkata)

IN THE CESTAT, EASTERN BENCH, KOLKATA
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (J)
ETRANS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF CGST & C. EX., BBSR, KOLKATA
Final Order No. FO/A/75927/KOL/2019, dated 30-7-2019 in Appeal
No. ST/77038/2018
Cenvat credit - Reversal of - Common inputs used in manufacture of
dutiable goods as well as exempted goods - Non-maintenance of separate ac-
counts of input services - Proportionate Cenvat credit availed on common
input services used in provision of taxable service as well as trading of goods
along with appropriate interest, reversed by appellant in terms of Rule 6(3A)
of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Demand of huge amount under Rule 6(3A)(i)
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  189