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

2015 (10) TMI 893 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2015 (10) TMI 893 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - Denial of refund claim - Reduction in rate of duty - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied High Court's order in the case of CCE Vs Addison & Co.(2000 (11) TMI 146 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS). Revenue's grounds is not on excisability or manufacture of beetle nut only on the refund allowed by the LAA. On merits, we find that it is not a refund which is arising out of any excess payment arising out of any dispute on value or quan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vernment and the same is liable to be refunded to the respondent. The Hon'ble High Court [Sic] in the case of Sunrise Engineers Vs CCE Jaipur (2015 (4) TMI 122 - SUPREME COURT) clearly held that on account of reduction of rate of duty by any subsequent notification, appellants are rightly eligible for refund and also held that no unjust enrichment clause would be applicable. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/494/2003 - Final Order No.41211/2015 - Dated:- 11-9-2015 - Shri R. Periasami, Te .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otfn 25/98-CE dt.24.11.98 wherein the duty was reduced from 18% to 15%. Since the appellant inadvertently paid duty @ 18% instead of 15% for 7 days as they were not aware of notification, they claimed refund. The refund was initially rejected and on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Against this order, the Revenue filed appeal. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed by this Tribunal's Final Order No.1478/2007 dt.7.12.2007 against which the R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate submits that in this case where they have paid excise duty and claimed refund of only the duty difference between 18% and 15% and they were not aware of the reduction of duty immediately. Once they came to know the reduction of duty immediately they raised credit notes and returned excise duty recovered from the dealers. He relied on the following decisions :- (1) Sunrays Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur 2015 (318) ELT 583 (SC) (2) CCE Mangalore Vs Solaris .....

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