CESTAT | Jurisdiction for claim of refund filed/initiated to be dealt under the provision Central Excise law and not by the provision of CGST law

Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) dismissed the application filed by the Revenue (CCE & ST, Panchkula) for ratification of mistake in a final order by the Tribunal which was noticed by the Applicant. The Tribunal dealt with two issues (a) whether to ratify previous order & (b) to deal with the jurisdiction.

The Department’s contention was that while deciding in the instant matters has wrongly relied upon the case of M/s. Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT Pune as in this case the Apex Court was dealing with Section 214 and 244(1A) of the Income tax Act 1961 whereas nothing has been provided in the Central Excise Act, 1944/ Service Tax Act, 1994 at the relevant time. Authorized Representative while presenting this contention relied on a SC case where the Court had held that even there is mistake of law which however should be apparent on the face of record which does not need long drawn process of reasoning and can be subject matter of rectification of mistake.

For this the Tribunal held that it found no mistake apparent on the face of record after examining the definition of the phrase “error apparent on face of records”. Further, it held that “the applicant is seeking to challenge the merits of the order dated 07-01-2020 to recall the same which is not permissible in law as the same shall amounts to review of its own order.”

The Revenue also filed miscellaneous application for modification in order by this Tribunal to implead the Commissioner, CGST, Rohtak as the respondent in the final order dated 7-1-2020, the appellant had wrongly impleaded the Commissioner, CGST, CE & ST, Panchkula, as the correct respondent should have been the Commissioner of CGST & CE, Rohtak and asked that the order be recalled. The Respondents submitted that the Tribunal doesn’t have the power to hear at this stage- the issue of jurisdiction. It was further submitted that the jurisdiction of the appellant/respondent to the application lies with CGST, Panchkula Commissionerate.

The Tribunal held that “the jurisdiction for the purpose of every claim of refund, every proceeding of appeal, review or reference before this Tribunal shall be dealt under the provision Central Excise law and not by the provision of CGST law.” The jurisdiction of the appellant falls under the jurisdiction of DC Range Panipat and the DC Range, Panipat is under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of CGST, Panchkula. The Tribunal found no merit in the application and it was subsequently dismissed.[Riba Textiles v. CCE & ST, Panchkula, Appeal No. E/60446 of 2018-Ex, decided on 30-12-2021]


Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Present for the Appellant: Shri Dinesh Verma

Present for the Respondent: Shri H.S. Brar

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.