|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 375 Records
-
2015 (11) TMI 1243 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Evasion of duty - Clandestine clearance of goods - Imposition of penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- The final statements were recorded after showing the details and appellant No 1 and 2 have admitted of having clandestinely cleared goods without recording in the statutory records. It is well settled position in law that whatever has been admitted need not be proved. The admission of clandestinely clearance was admitted and continue to be admitted till date. The argument that Revenue has not produced any direct evidences is therefore irrelevant in the present facts and circumstances. In fact, appellant No. 1 have also deposited part of the duty during investigation. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not have any doubt whatsoever about clandestine clearance of the goods its’s quantity or the value. - penalty under Section 11AC is imposable on the Appellant No. 1 as this is a case of suppression of fact with willful intention to evade payment of duty. We also note that appellant No. 2 has submitted that penalty cannot be imposed on him being partner of appellant No. 1 and penalty has been imposed on the appellant No 1. We find from the order that on appellant No. 1 penalty imposed is under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while in case of appellant no. 2 penalty has been imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Purpose of Rule 26 and Section 11AC are different. - No merit in appeal - Decided partly against assessee.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1242 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of CENVAT credit - Endorsement of Invoices - Invoices of “Furnace Oil” issued by three different suppliers, on the ground that the invoices are not permitted to be endorsed and CENVAT credit is not admissible on such endorsed invoices - Held that:- Input i.e. Furnace Oil’ was supplied to the unit of M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd. which was taken over by the appellant and they were carrying out manufacturing activity when received the input along with invoices which were raised in favour of M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd. The input supplied was received by the appellant and used in their manufacture. From the Books of Account of the appellant, it is found that all the 19 invoices in question were against purchase of ‘Furnace Oil’ in appellant’s Books of Account. It is also not in dispute that the amount of all 19 invoices paid only by the appellant to the supplier. From these facts, it is clear that the buyer of the goods is the appellant and for this reason M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd. endorsed the invoices in favour of the appellant, it is also fact that M/s Vipras Corporation Ltd. is sister concern of the appellant. - invoice was endorsed by the sister concern of the appellant and the premises of which the goods were consigned is under the possession of the appellant - appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1241 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - sale to interconnected units - Discharge of excise duty under Rule 8 and 9 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable goods) Rules, 2000 - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- Appellant have admitted that the three buyers companies are their interconnected undertakings. However merely because buyers are interconnected undertakings it is not sufficient to hold that the companies are related persons. - transaction value can be rejected only when the buyers are related in the sense in clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of Section of 4(3) (b) or buyer is holding company or subsidiary company of the assessee. It was made further clear that while dealing with transaction between interconnected undertaking, if the relationship as described in clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) does not exist and buyers also not holding or subsidiary then for assessment purpose they will not be considered related.
Transaction value of the goods between appellant and these three interconnected undertaking is correct valuation and the same cannot be disturbed, therefore value as provided under Rule 8 is not applicable in the present case. - When for the same goods transaction value is available i.e. transaction value at which the goods are sold to independent buyers, then there is no scope of any notional value such as valuation in terms of Rule 8 or otherwise. For this reason also valuation of Rule 8 cannot be applied in the present case. - appellant have correctly valued their goods sold to their three interconnected undertakings, therefore the impugned order is not sustainable and deserve to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1240 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Denial of SSI Exemption - whether or not the main appellant manufactured and cleared cables using another person's brand name - Held that:- Even if it is conceded that such manufacture on the brand name of Deelux Premium is due to an error in the supply of print block, the appellant cannot escape the consequences of such error resulting in duty liability. Other than this, there is no direct or corroborative evidence to establish that the appellant manufactured and cleared cables with brand name of 'Deelux Premium' during the whole of period of demand. On the contrary there are evidence, both documentary and through statement, that the appellant did manufacture cables with their brand name "DEELUX" during the impugned period. - we are unable to subscribe to the view that all the cables manufactured by the appellant during the impugned period are with brand name of another person, in the absence of any documentary/corroborative evidence to that effect. We find the confirmation of demand substantially relying on the statements of various people which were retracted later cannot be sustained, as the basic requirement of establishing the veracity of these statements by cross-examination has not been done.
Brand name of DEELUX has been in the use of the appellant for many years before coming into existence of Deelux Cable & Wire Pvt. Ltd. having different brand name Deefux Premium. In fact both the brand names were sought to be registered on the same day. However, the brand name 'DEELUX' is yet to be registered. Though the word "DEELUX" is an invented word, the brand name of M/s Deelux Cable & Wire Pvt. Ltd. is known as Deelux Premium. It is relevant to note that the name of both the units have this invented word and as such it cannot be said that the usage of word 'Deelux' is a part representative of 'Deelux Premium' and as such it established a link to that brand. - reasoning given by the Original Authority on this account is not justified. - Order is not sustainable - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1239 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Duty demand - Clandestine clearances of the goods - Held that:- The statement of the buyer is corroborative with the records maintained by the buyer in their factory. The Central Excise officers seized a note book from the premises of the buyer maintained by their accountant. They have also seized daily reports from the premises of the buyer. The entire demand of duty was calculated on the basis of the seized records recovered from the premises of the buyer - no material recovered from the premises of the appellant company. The cross examination of the buyer and broker are not allowed and therefore, the contention of the Learned Authorised Representative cannot be accepted. The Learned Authorised Representative strongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shalini Steel Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad - [2010 (3) TMI 700 - CESTAT, BANGALORE]. In that case, the Central Excise officers recovered various documents from the premises of assessee, which was not seriously disputed by the assessee. In this contest, the Tribunal observed that the value of documents could not be lost in absence of cross examination of the employee. The said case law could not be applicable in the present case. - impugned order cannot be sustained and it is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1238 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Rectification of mistake - Tribunal has not discussed Assessee's points and also not countered their case laws - Held that:- Tribunal can rectify any mistake apparent on record in the said order. Appellant claiming to reconsider the citations and also to draw findings on their contention amounts to seeking revisit the facts and findings of the Tribunal's order dt. 20.11.2014 which amounts to review of the order and there is no power vested with Tribunal to review its order. Appellant's relied High Court and Supreme Court case laws referred to above which are distinguishable to the facts of the present case whereas the Tribunal had discussed the issue in detail and also relied Supreme Court case laws. - any decision on debatable point of law cannot be treated as ‘mistake apparent from record’. - we do not find any apparent and manifest mistake in the Tribunals final order so as to exercise the powers to recall or modify the final order - Rectification denied.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1237 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods - Evasion of duty - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that:- Appellant factory was having an average stock of two crore bottles. As per the finding in the Order-in-Original, the shortages found by the Revenue is 11,61,269 bottles and excess worked out as 3,64,682 bottles. Thus, the net shortage is 7,90,387, as worked out by Revenue. For calculation purpose rounding off to 8 lakh bottles, in view of the average stock of 2 crore bottles, the shortage worked out is about 4%. I hold that this is a normal percentage of discrepancy in the nature of business of the appellant. Further, I take notice of the fact that the stock taking had been started at 6.30 pm on 15.2.1990 which was continued throughout the night in poor lighting condition and again the same was continued on 16.2.1990 and was continued in the morning of 17.2.1990. Thus, the mistakes or errors in stock taking cannot be ruled out, and as such, the shortage and/or excess pointed out by the Revenue cannot be held to be perfect. Thus, I hold that the shortages or excess found is the normal variation in stock taking for which no adverse intention is called for. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT
Delayed payment of central excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Demand of Interest and penalty - Rules 96ZO, 96 ZP and 96 ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 - violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - Held that:- When Section 6 speaks of the repeal of any enactment, it refers not merely to the enactment as a whole but also to any provision contained in any Act. Thus, it is clear that if a part of a statute is deleted, Section 6 would nonetheless apply. Secondly, it is clear, as has been stated by referring to a passage in Halsbury’s Laws of England in the Fibre Board’s judgment, that the expression “omission” is nothing but a particular form of words evincing an intention to abrogate an enactment or portion thereof.
A delay of even one day would straightaway, without more, attract a penalty of an equivalent amount of duty, which may be in crores of rupees. It is clear that as has been held by this Court, penalty imposable under the aforesaid three Rules is inflexible and mandatory in nature. The High Court is, therefore, correct in saying that an assessee who pays the delayed amount of duty after 100 days is to be on the same footing as an assessee who pays the duty only after one day’s delay and that therefore such rule treats unequals as equals and would, therefore, violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also correct in saying that there may be circumstances of force majeure which may prevent a bonafide assessee from paying the duty in time, and on certain given factual circumstances, despite there being no fault on the part of the assessee in making the deposit of duty in time, a mandatory penalty of an equivalent amount of duty would be compulsorily leviable and recoverable from such assessee. This would be extremely arbitrary and violative of Article 14 for this reason as well.
Even where clandestine removal and intent to evade duty are present, yet the authorities are given a discretion to levy a penalty higher than ₹ 10,000/- but not exceeding the duty leviable. In a given case, therefore, even where there is willful intent to evade duty and the duty amount comes to say a crore of rupees, the authorities can in the facts and circumstances of a given case, levy a penalty of say ₹ 25,00,000/- or ₹ 50,00,000/-. This being the position, it is clear that when contrasted with the provisions of the Central Excise Act itself, the penalty provisions contained in Rules 96ZO, 96 ZP and 96 ZQ are both arbitrary and excessive. - A penalty can only be levied by authority of statutory law, and Section 37 of the Act, as has been extracted above does not expressly authorize the Government to levy penalty higher than ₹ 5,000/-. This further shows that imposition of a mandatory penalty equal to the amount of duty not being by statute would itself make rules 96ZO, 96 ZP and 96 ZQ without authority of law. We, therefore, uphold the contention of the assessees in all these cases and strike down rules 96ZO, 96 ZP and 96 ZQ insofar as they impose a mandatory penalty equivalent to the amount of duty on the ground that these provisions are violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and are ultra vires the Central Excise Act.
Load capacity of an induction furnace unit is certainly relevant material referred to in Rule 3(2) to determine the capacity of the furnace installed. It is obvious that it is not necessary to state such load capacity in terms for it to be included in Rule 3(2). - interest and penalty provisions under the Rules 96ZO, ZP, and ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 are invalid for the reasons assigned in the judgment. - Appeal disposed of.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1171 - SUPREME COURT
100% EOU - Valuation - clearances of product to two sister units on payment of duty in terms of Notification No.8/97 CE dated 1.3.1997 and Notification No.23/2003 CE dated 31.3.2003 - Captive consumption - Department contended that appellant an EOU determine the assessable value of manufactured good was not correct and accordingly demand were made along with penalty - Held that:- There is specific provision for exemption of certain goods produced in a 100% EOU wholly from raw materials produced or manufactured in India. It is not disputed by the revenue that the instant tea manufactured by the respondent would be covered being a finished product specified in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Further, the notification goes on to state that the said tea should be “allowed to be sold” in India in accordance with the relevant EXIM policy. It further goes on to state that the exemption from payment of the duty of excise that is leviable thereunder under Section 3 is what is payable in excess of an amount equal to the duty of excise leviable on like goods produced or manufactured in India produced in an undertaking other than in a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, if sold in India. - notification states that duty calculated on the said basis would only be payable to the extent of like goods manufactured in India by persons other than 100% EOUs. This being the case, it is clear that in the absence of actual sales in the wholesale market, when goods are captively consumed and not sold, Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules would have to be followed to determine what would be the amount equal to the duty of excise leviable on like goods.
Duty of excise arrived at based on Section 3(1) Proviso (ii) is more than the duty determinable for like goods produced or manufactured in India in other than 100% EOUs. Since the notification exempts anything that is in excess of what is determined as excise duty on such like goods, and considering that for the entire period under question the duty arrived at under Section 3(1) proviso (ii) is in excess of the duty arrived at on like goods manufactured in India by non 100% EOUs, it is clear that the whole basis of the show cause notice is indeed flawed. Further, the show cause notice is based on one solitary circumstance – the fact that goods captively consumed by the two sister units of the unit in question are not “sold”. - notification has been framed by the Central Government, in its wisdom, to levy only what is levied by way of excise duty on similar goods manufactured in India, on goods produced and sold by 100% EOUs in the domestic tariff area if they are produced from indigenous raw materials. If the revenue were right, logically they ought to have contended that the notification does not apply, in which event the test laid down under Section 3(1) proviso (ii) would then apply. This not being the case, we are of the view that the Tribunal’s judgment [2007 (5) TMI 98 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] is correct and requires no interference - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1170 - SUPREME COURT
Classification - printed PVC sheets - Classification under Chapter 39 or chapter 49 - Order beyond the scope of SCN - Held that:- Even the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated November 19, 1997 correctly proceeds on the footing that by mere printing, the fabric does not lose its original identity. However, despite this finding of the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner went on to levy excise duty twice over in respect of the same product, both times under Chapter 39 Heading No. 39.20. - findings in these paragraphs by the Tribunal have to be set aside on the simple ground that they are beyond the show cause notice of the Revenue, which accepts the fact that at least in the present case, no new product emerges after printing and consequently, therefore, that cannot be said to be any manufacture. On this ground alone, we set aside the Tribunal's judgment and restore that of the Commissioner, making it clear that the classification of the product remains under Chapter 39 Heading No. 39.20 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1169 - SC ORDER
Classification of goods - Held that:- issue involved is purely a question of fact on the basis of which classification of the goods in question is arrived at. In fact, the CESTAT followed its earlier final order [2005 (2) TMI 177 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and the appeals thereagainst, viz., [2011 (9) TMI 995 - SUPREME COURT], have already been dismissed by this Court. - Following the same, Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1168 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Availment of CENVAT Credit - Whether the cenvated inputs were actually exchanged between the three units without reversal of equivalent credit or the same were sold out to some other persons - allegation of clandestine removal - Revenue neutrality - Held that:- Tribunal found that once the inputs have been delivered only at the factories of the assessees from the associate companies, then no loss occurs to revenue. The assessees would derive no benefit by not reversing CENVAT credit on the inputs, when sister concerns are also eligible to take CENVAT credit. Therefore, in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence particularly on the diversion of these inputs, the Tribunal applied the doctrine or principle of revenue neutrality. - Tribunal has taken this factual position from order-in-original itself. The only procedure that was required to be complied with was clearance of the raw materials after reversing the credit availed on it. Thus, the duty amount should have been paid and thereafter when these inputs or raw materials were utilized in the manufacture of the final product, the CENVAT credit could have been claimed but this procedure was not followed. - merely because the penalty has been notionally imposed on all the assessees, does not mean that the Tribunal's earlier conclusion, and by applicability of the principle of revenue neutrality, is perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of record. Imposition of the notional penalty is for infraction of some procedural rule - No substantial question of law arises - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1167 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Benefit of serial number 91 of table annexed to Notification No.6/2006 dated 1 March 2006 - supply is not against international competitive bidding - applicant did not produce the essentiality certificate from DGHC - Held that:- Condition no.29 is only relied upon but a bare perusal thereof would indicate that the Tribunal has held that Condition no.29(c)(iv) is inapplicable to the assessee before it. As far as Condition nos.29(c)(i) to (iii) are concerned, the Tribunal found that all such stipulations, as are referred, have to be fulfilled by the importers of goods. These are not applicable to the domestic importers. Upon perusal of Condition no.29, we are satisfied that the Tribunal's factual conclusion does not raise any substantial question of law. Once the Revenue does not dispute that the assessee is a domestic manufacturer and has to satisfy only one of those conditions, particularly that the supply must be of goods in relation to contracts awarded under international competitive bidding procedure, then that condition is squarely satisfied. The condition such as Condition no.29 which pertains to an importer of the goods need not be, in the given facts, satisfied by the domestic importer and that is the conclusion reached by the Tribunal - conclusion of the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The appeal, therefore, does not raise any substantial question of law - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1166 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Misdeclaration - Held that:- Adjudicating authority had mentioned that the production was recorded by weight but in the sale invoices, the goods were sold by numbers without indicating the weight of the finished goods but nothing was proved that how the stock position was verified regarding sale invoices which only showed numbers without giving their weight. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) extending the benefit of doubt to the assessee had set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The aforesaid findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were affirmed by the Tribunal by observing that there was no other evidence on record to prove the clandestine activities of the assessee as the revenue has not conducted further investigations to establish the identity of the buyers or the suppliers of the raw-materials or the transporters. Further, it was held by the Tribunal that mere shortages detected at the time of visit of the officers cannot ipso facto lead to the allegations and findings of clandestine removal. - No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1164 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal before HC - Applicability of Notification No.14/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 - determination of the rate of duty - Held that:- A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal clearly shows that the dispute involved in the present case relates to the applicability of Notification No.14/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 which has a direct bearing on the determination of the rate of duty for the purposes of assessment. Under the circumstances, in the light of the provisions of section 35G read with section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 these appeals are not maintainable before this court - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1163 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalty - Concealment of particulars - Held that:- If there is any concealment in that application and a penalty has been imposed by the Settlement Commission on the ground of such concealment, then a second application before the Settlement Commission is barred, in my interpretation of Section 32-O(i) of the said Act - The order of the Settlement Commission does not specify whether this kind of a penalty was imposed on the writ petitioner. Just because a penalty is imposed on a show-cause notice the writ petitioner’s application before the Commission was not entertained. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1162 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
SSI Exemption - Valuation - clubbing of clearances - inclusion of value of clearances - Dummy units - Non Speaking order - Held that:- If there is an element of independent existence of a unit, the Department has to issue Show Cause Notice to such unit to sustain the plea for the purpose of clubbing the clearances. In the instant case, though there is material to that effect, no notice has been issued and the Tribunal remanded the matter for issuance of notices and that has been accepted by the assessee and not by the Department. - department should have issued notice to all the units. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / assessee states that in respect of the other matter for which no appeal has been filed, they are not aggrieved and that the order of the Tribunal need not be set aside only on the ground that it has called upon the department to issue notice to the two units namely CTGC and GCC. According to him, the issue is only regarding the clubbing of clearances which could be agitated on merits before the authority as and when Show Cause Notice is issued in terms of the orders of the Tribunal.
The authority concerned is directed to issue show cause notice to allthe parties, afford them an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders afresh, on merits and in accordance with law. - Matter remanded back.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1161 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation of goods - section 4 - Related person - Held that:- When, the assessee, in addition to sale of the goods produced by him to related person on regular basis, also sells the same goods on regular basis to independent buyers, the third proviso to section 4 (1) (a) would not apply and in that case the normal price at which the assessee was selling the goods to independent buyers which would be the assessable value even in respect of the sales to related persons. The reason for this is that in terms of provisions of section 4 (1) (a), as the same stood during the period of dispute, when the goods manufactured by an assessee attracted duty at an ad-valorem rate, the value of the goods for the assessment of duty was deemed to be the normal price which was defined as the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to the buyer in course of the wholesale trade for delivery at the time of place of removal, where the buyer is not related person and price is the sole consideration for sale.
It is assumed that PALI and Philips India Limited were related persons within the meaning of this term as defined in the section 4 (4) (c), the assessable value of the goods sold by PALI to Philips India Limited would be the price at which the similar goods were being sold by PALI to Bajaj Electricals Limited and in this regard, the department has not refuted the plea of PALI that the sale price of the goods manufactured by them to PIL was more or less same as the sale price of similar goods to Bajaj Electricals Limited. In view of this, it cannot be said that the PALI, in respect of their sales to Philips India Limited have not paid duty on the normal price. When undisputedly 2 to 3 per cent of the sales of PALI were to Bajaj Electricals Limited and neither the genuineness of these transactions is disputed by the department nor the department has alleged that PALI and Bajaj Electricals Limited were related person within the meaning of this term as defined in section 4 (4) (c), the department cannot invoke 3rd proviso to section 4 (1) (a) and charge duty in respect of the sales of PALI to Philips India Limited at the sale price of Philips India Limited to its dealers.
Therefore, irrespective of whether PALI and Philips India Limited were related persons or not, the impugned duty demand against PALI and imposition of penalty on them and Philips India Limited and Philips, Netherlands is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1160 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - whether the appellant was eligible for cenvat credit of duty paid on MS sheets, angles, plates, beams etc - Held that:- As per directions of the Hon'ble High Court does not require to go beyond the observations therein. Since the matter has been remanded for a limited consideration of the decisions applicable to the facts in this case and also to consider the decision in the case of Sree Rayalaseema Hi-strength Hypo Ltd. [2012 (11) TMI 255 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] and apply the same to the facts in this case, going beyond that would not be appropriate. Therefore even though I have reproduced several other decisions hereinabove, I consider that the issue has been dealt with adequately as per the directions of the High Court - High Court of Andhra Pradesh decision in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (2011 (4) TMI 1098 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ) is applicable to the facts of this case and further there is another decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Hindustan Zinc (2006 (5) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN ) which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which also considers similar set of facts and therefore is applicable to the issue - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (11) TMI 1159 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Denial of interest claim - Interest on delayed refund - Scope of Section 11BB - Held that:- Appellant are entitled to the claim of interest on delayed refund of CENVAT Credit on the four applications filed between 25.07.1994 and 28.04.1995. From the table mentioned as above it seems that the interest amount against the delayed refund claims were calculated taking the date of filing of such claims as the relevant date. However, for pending refund claims as on 26.05.1995, the date of enactment of Sec.11BB, the payment of interest shall be computed in accordance with proviso to Sec. 11BB i.e from 26.08.1995 and not from the date of application of refund in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Rajastan High Court in J.K.Cement Works Case(2004 (2) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR). Thus, the case is remanded to adjudicating authority only for the limited purpose of verification/computation of interest amount claimed/to be paid, as the case may be, taking the relevant date as 26.08.1995. - Appeal disposed of.
............
|
