CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No.II (E-HEARING)

Excise Appeal No.70623 of 2025 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.633-CE/APPL/LKO/2024 dated 30/09/2024 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow)

M/s Jindal Quality Tubular Ltd., ….Appellant (A-1, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Kosi Kalan, Mathura)

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise &

CGST, Agra ….Respondent (CGST Commissionerate, Mathura)

APPEARANCE Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.70087/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 19 March, 2026 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 March, 2026 SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.633-

CE/APPL/LKO/2024 dated 30/09/2024 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow. By the impugned order following has been held:-

“5.12 In view of the above findings and the judicial pronouncement, I am the considered view that out of total refund claim of Rs.8,43,240/- filed by the appellant, the refund claim of Rs.4,48,532/- is proper and sanctionable to them only and the rest refund claim of Rs.3,94,708/- of the appellant is hereby rejected as time barred.

5.13 The impugned order is modified to the above extent. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of accordingly.”

2.1 Appellant having Central Excise Registration No.AADCJ6035GEM001 was engaged in manufacture of Tubes, Pipes and Hollow Profiles of Iron/Stainless Steel falling under tariff heading No.73041110/73061100 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

2.2 They have obtained an Advance Authorization License No.0510401960 dated 15.03.2017 against which they had made excess import without payment of customs duty vide a Bill of Entry No.9746663 dated 19.05.2017 as pointed out by the Norms Committee. They deposited the differential customs duty along with interest as detailed in table below:-

Sl. No. Challan date Differential customs duty alongwith interest

1. 09.05.2019 6,20,477/- 2. 14.01.2022 7,05,088/-

2.3 Appellant filed refund claim in respect of above amount contending that the amount paid by them towards CVD & SAD were admissible to them as Cenvat credit under the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 prior to 01.07.2017. However, in the GST regime w.e.f. 01.07.2017 they could not avail the said amount as Cenvat credit and thus they are claiming refund of this amount (Rs.8,43,240/-) vide refund claim dated 03.02.2023 under the provisions of Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017.

2.4 A show cause notice dated 29.03.2023 was issued to them and the same was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No.20/DC/C.Ex/DMTR/2023-24 dated 27.06.2023 vide which the refund claim was rejected as barred by limitation.

2.5 Aggrieved appellant have filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which has been partially allowed, for the part their appeal has been rejected, appellant has filed appeal before this Tribunal.

2.6 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal.

3.1 I have heard Shri R. Santhanam learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Santosh Kumar learned Authorized Representative appearing for the revenue.

3.2 Arguing for the appellant learned Counsel submits that-

 Appellant was earlier operating in the name of M/s Jindal Quality Tubular Ltd. and after their merger with M/s Jindal Saw Ltd. vide order of NCLT dated 21.04.2024, all the assets and liabilities of the said company were transferred in the name of amalgamated company.

 Though this order was prior to hearing by the Commissioner (Appeals) and Order-in-Appeal, they had failed to inform accordingly about the merger order. However, in view of the above order of NCLT the refund claim was due to the amalgamated company only.

 The refund claim could not have been rejected on the ground of time bar as this was in respect of the amounts claimed as refund which became due during the period when the country was g