GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 333 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (10) TMI 333 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Denial of refund claim - non availability of sufficient documents - Bar of limitation - Held that:- Advocate drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant letter issued by Superintendent, Central Excise. The Range Officer requested the Appellant to provide several documents, and thereafter the assessee resubmitted the refund claim with all the documents as directed by the Range Officer. The Tribunal in the case of Indra Processors Vs Commissioner, C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ocess to refund claim in the absence of the documents as mentioned therein and the assessee was directed to do the needful. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously accepted the date of filing of the refund claim is on 29.09.2010.

Assessee by letter dt.21.10.2010 had categorically requested to withdraw the amount of ₹ 6,47,473.00 as they had no documentary evidence. In the certificate dt.22.04.2011, I do not find any specific mention of this amount. Hence, both the authorit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

No.A/10278-10279/2015 - Dated:- 26-3-2015 - MR. P.K. DAS, J. For The Assessee: Shri Anand Mishra, Advocate For The Revenue: Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative Per: P.K. Das 1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in manufacture of Aluminum Conductors. They procured purchase orders from different buyers for supply of Aluminum Conductors. There was price variation clause in the purchase order. They were issuing supplementary invoices for the good .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evidence and requested to sanction the remaining amount of ₹ 27,04,323.00. 2. A show cause notice dt.04.11.2010 was issued, proposing to reject the refund claim of ₹ 33,51,796.00 filed on 29.09.2010 for the period June 2009 to March 2010 as time barred. Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim filed by the assessee. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the Adjudication order in so far as the rejection of refund claim of ₹ 19,26,095.00 was upheld as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wer to remand this matter. 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the assessee filed refund claim on 12.04.2010 which was returned by the Range officer on 29.04.2010 as there were no sufficient documents. The assessee again resubmitted the claim on 29.09.2010. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), the date of resubmission of refund claim is to be considered as actual date of filing of the refund claim. 4. I am unable to agree with the findings of the Commis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was at the instance of Central Excise officers and therefore, the date of filing of refund claim would be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation. I find that the assessee filed refund claim within the stipulated period. On perusal of the letter dt.29.04.2010 of the Range Officer, it is seen that the Range Officer returned the papers on the ground that it is not possible to process to refund claim in the absence of the documents as mentioned therein and the assessee was directed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 6,47,473.00 as they had no documentary evidence. In the certificate dt.22.04.2011, I do not find any specific mention of this amount. Hence, both the authorities below has rightly rejected the refund claim of ₹ 6,47,473.00. 6. Revenue filed the appeal on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand this case. Learned Authorised Representative relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Mil India Ltd Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Noid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- 4. It was also submitted that in several decisions of the Tribunal, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. MIL India Ltd. - 2007 (210) E.L.T. 188 (S.C.) to support the view that the Commissioner has no power to remand. After considering all these decisions, I find that in the case of M/s. MIL India, the main issue before Hon ble Supreme Court was entirely different and hence it was only observation during the course of discussion of the issue wherein H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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