Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Sunrays Engineers Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise

2015 (4) TMI 122 - SUPREME COURT

Refund claim - retrospective amendment reducing rate of excise duty - Period of limitation - Unjust enrichment - sanctioned claim was ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on account of unjust enrichment - Held that:- The notification revising the rate of excise duty was issued on 31.10.2000 and given retrospective effect that is, w.e.f., 01.07.1999. Thus, only on the issuance of this notification, the excise duty was reduced. It would, therefore, be clear that 31.10.2000 is the tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

do not understand the logic or rationale behind the order of the CESTAT counting the period from July, 1999 for which the excess amount was sought to be refunded. The order of the CESTAT is, therefore, palpably wrong and erroneous in law - appellant is entitled to succeed in the claim of entire amount of ₹ 26,23,366/-. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest of nine per cent per annum (to be calculated from the date when the refund became payable till the date when the amount is actuall .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ub heading 7311 of the Central Tariff Act and supplied the same to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited for the period from July, 1999 to October, 2000. It filed an application dated 19.06.2001 for refund of excise duty to the tune of ₹ 26,23,366/- stating that the said LPG cylinders were supplied at price (provisional) revised retrospectively w.e.f., 1.7.1999 as per the purchase orders and further excess excise duty has not been charged from the custo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, who partly allowed the appeal. He held that there was no evidence that buyers had passed on the incidence of duty to any other person (buyer) and, therefore, there was no unjust enrichment. On merits, however, he allowed the part refund to the extent of ₹ 6,30,981/- only holding that remaining claim was time-barred. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

may be taken note of which are as under: - The period for which refund is sought is July, 1999, to October, 2000. The notification revising the rate of excise duty was issued on 31.10.2000 and given retrospective effect that is, w.e.f., 01.07.1999. Thus, only on the issuance of this notification, the excise duty was reduced. It would, therefore, be clear that 31.10.2000 is the trigger point which entitled the appellant to claim the refund. In the absence of any such notification there was no ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version