Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Kali Steel & Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli

2015 (9) TMI 39 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Denial of consequential refund - claim is not supported by any quantification or valid evidence that incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other customer - Held that:- As regards the demand of proof of evidence on payment of ₹ 1,07,245/-, we find from extract of RG-23C Part II at page 24 which clearly shows that at Sl.No.1, there is an endorsement in the RG-23C Part II showing payment of ₹ 1,07,245/- towards SCN OC NO.403/97 dt.31.3.97. This debit was made towards the SCN w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

quently. On perusal of the amount involved, they have made the payment by way of RG-23C Part-II and therefore question of unjust enrichment does not arise. - appellants are eligible for refund amount debited in RG.23C-Part-II as re-credit of cenvat credit - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/1231/2004 - FINAL ORDER No.40916/2015 - Dated:- 3-8-2015 - Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member and Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.3.2004 rejected the refund amount on the ground that the claim is not supported by any quantification or valid evidence that incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other customer Against this, appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order upheld the order and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal before Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that they have produced copy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uced copy of Extract of RG.23C Part-II. He submits that they have paid an amount of ₹ 1,07,245/- by debiting in RG.23C Part-II on 1.7.1997 at Sl.No.1. He submits that this amount related to goods which were already cleared and the amount involved is ₹ 11, 20/- and upto ₹ 53,000/-. They never raised any supplementary invoice. They neither issued any credit note nor debit note. He submits that this demand was issued by department as per annexure to SCN and they complied with SCN .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uty to customers. He relied on the following citations :- (1) SRF Ltd. Vs CC Chennai 2006 (193) ELT 186 (Tri.-LB) (2) TVS Motor Company Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai-III 2014 (303) ELT 520 (Mad.) 5. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue relates to consequential refund claimed by the appellant on account of OIA No.46/2003 wherein the appellant's appeal was partly allowed. Both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority have rejected the claim saying that appellant has not produce .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version