Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (9) TMI 632

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1/2014 - Dated:- 18-9-2014 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S K Shukla (AR) JUDGEMENT Per : Mr. H K Thakur; This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against OIA No. 70/2007(Ahd-I) dtd 15.2.2007 passed by the commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad. 2. Shri S K Shukla (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the appellant paid duty on certain goods manufactured by them at the time of clearance. Subsequently, appellant filed a refund claim of ₹ 7,40,861/- by claming exemption under Notifiction No. 6/2002-CE dtd 1.3.2002 in view of supply made to Kerala Water Authority on the basis of a certificate issued by Dist Collector, Eranakulam, as per condition No. 47 A prescribe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent and made written submission. It is the case of the respondent that refund claim is admissible to them even if certificate required under Notification No. 6/2002-CE was not produced at the time of clearance especially when the refund claim is filed within the prescribed time Respondent relied upon the following case laws: i) CCE, Cochin vs OEN India Ltd - 2006(202)ELT.836 (Tri.Bang.) ii) Dynamic Laminates (I) Ltd vs CCE, Chandigarh - 2003(151)ELT.2905 (Tri.Del) iii) CCE, Chennai vs Dynaspeed Integrated Systems Ltd 2002 (147) ELT.541 (Tri.-Chennai) iv) Share Medical Care vs UOI 2007 (209) ELT 321 (SC) v) CCE vs Suburban Engg Works (Ca.) P Ltd 1991 (56) ELT.470 vi) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... do not find any merit in the above contentions. Admittedly, while clearing the goods on payment of excise duty, the procedure for removal of goods on provisional basis has not been followed. The Apex Court in the case of Metal Forgings vs Union of India [2002(146)ELT.241 (SC)] has held that in the absence of order of provisional assessment, the clearance cannot be said to be on provisional assessment basis. Where the goods are cleared under the self removal procedure basis on approved classification list and approved price list, the clearances are on self assessment and unless such self assessment is varied or altered, the question of refunding the duty paid on self assessment does not rise at all. The apex court in the case of M/s Priya .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates