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 →

M/s. M.M. Forgings Ltd. Versus CCE, Tiruchirappalli

2015 (10) TMI 572 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Recovery of erroneous refund of unutilized cenvat credit - period of limitation - Export of service - whether notices issued by adjudicating authority for demanding erroneous refund is hit by limitation specified under notification No. 35/2000 or whether general limitation for extended period is covered under section 11A of Central Excise Act,1944 - Held that:- it is clear that the demand of erroneous refund made under this notification shall be within six months from the date of refund. We also .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

40 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) wherein it categorically held that when there is a limitation provided under the notification, the period mentioned under section 11A is not applicable.

Ratio of this Tribunal order and the Hon’ble Apex Courts judgment are clearly applicable to the facts of the present case and there is no dispute on the fact that the refund was sanctioned under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 in terms of Notification No. 35/2000. Therefore, when such notification cl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER Per R. Periasami Appellant preferred appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 28.11.2003 passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the adjudicating authority had sanctioned refund of ₹ 74,99,199/- by way three Orders-in-Original dated 23.11.2001, 8.2.2002 and 6.5.2002 under Rule 57AC(7) of Central Excise Rules, 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dated 10.9.2003. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. Hence, appellants have come in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel submits that the Department has sanctioned refund under Rule 57AC(7) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 being unutilized amount of credit accumulate towards their export. He submits that the refund orders were not reviewed by the Department nor any appeal filed against the said orders. Instead the adjudicating au .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(181) ELT 154 (SC) (b) Rourkela Steel Plant Vs. CCE, Bhubaneswar - 2008 (227) ELT 522 (Tri. LB) (c) CCE, Jaipur Vs. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. 2000 (118) ELT 311 (SC) (d) Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras 1998 (98) ELT 79 He submits that in the case of Shasun Chemicals (supra) this Tribunal has held that the limitation prescribed under Notification No. 85/87 dated 1.3.1987 is only applicable and the extended period of limitation under section 11A is not applicable. 4. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ection 11A provision overrides the notification. 5. After hearing both sides and careful consideration of the records, we find that the limited issue in this case is whether notices issued by adjudicating authority for demanding erroneous refund is hit by limitation specified under notification No. 35/2000 or whether general limitation for extended period is covered under section 11A of Central Excise Act,1944. 6. On perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority had sanctioned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er undertakes to refund to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, on demand being made, within six months of the date of payment, any refund erroneously paid to him. As seen from the above, it is clear that the demand of erroneous refund made under this notification shall be within six months from the date of refund. We also find that the adjudicating authority has sanctioned the refund but there is nothing on record to show .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

entioned under section 11A is not applicable. Para 13 of the Hon ble Supreme Courts order reads as under:- 13. Any law or stipulation prescribing a period of limitation to do or not to do a thing after the expiry of period so stipulated has the consequence of creation and destruction of rights and, therefore, must be specifically enacted and prescribed therefor. It is not for the Courts to import any specific period of limitation by implication, where there is really none, though Courts may alwa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eriod on certain contingencies and situations. The situation on hand and the one which has to be dealt with under Rule 57-I, as it stood unamended, does not fall under any one of those contingencies provided for in Section 11A of the Act. Part AA of the Rules in which Rule 57-I is found included provides a special scheme for earning credit and adjustment of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs in the manufacture of what is referred to as final product, and thereby enable the manufacturer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted to have made was with an amount not legitimately or factually earned by or due to him. For this purpose, the irregularity and impropriety committed by the manufacturer in maintaining the accounts and the error in the calculation of the credit said to have been earned by him is pointed out, and the manufacturer is only directed to reverse the credit so wrongly and undeservedly made by readjustment and if need be, to recover the amount equivalent to such credit wrongly availed of and disallowe .....

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