Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 152 - AT - Central ExciseCompounded levy scheme - manufacture of chewing tobacco - abatement - refund of duty - limitation bar - section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - whether the provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act can be adopted for deciding the refund claim arising in terms of the compounded levy scheme, for the purpose of determining the limitation? - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2011 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] where it was held that the importing one scheme of tax administration to a different scheme is not appropriate and would disturb the smooth functioning of such unique scheme. Time limit prescribed under one scheme could be unwarranted for another scheme - the compounded levy scheme is a separate scheme from the normal scheme for determination of excise duty of goods manufactured. Rules under compounded levy scheme stipulate method, time and manner of payment of duty, interest and penalty and same being a comprehensive scheme in itself, the general provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules stand excluded. It is not open to the Revenue to reject the refund claim under section 11 B of the Central Excise Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|