Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1453 - CESTAT CHANDIGARHRefund in cash - the appellants have filed the refund claim in respect of same duty amount which was deposited by M/s Escorts (TED) as per the order of the Settlement Commission - whether the refund claim filed by the appellants would amount to re-opening of the order of the Settlement Commission? - Held that: - during the material time, both M/s Escorts (TED) and Escorts Ltd. (TD), later known as AMG (Tractor Plant), were having common central excise registration and therefore seeking of the refund by Escorts Ltd.-AMG (Tractor Plant) paid by M/s Escorts (TED) would not only nullify the terms of the settlement, it would also be tantamount to re-opening and vitiating the proceedings of the Settlement Commission, which are conclusive in terms of Section 32F(7). Accordingly, the refund claim of ₹ 3,84,01,009/- filed by M/s Escorts Ltd- AMG (Tractor Plant) would be hit by proviso of Section 32F(7) and 32F(9) as also 32M of the Act and is therefore not sustainable on that ground. Whether cash refund is allowed? - Held that: - The refund claim for differential duty was filed in 2005 under Rule 57E but the said Rule was not in existence at that point of time. Hence, the relief sought by appellants under Rule 57E is not available to the appellants even by virtue of provision of Section 38A ibid. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|