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

Arr Sales Agency Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

2015 (10) TMI 1365 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Recovery of erroneous refund - excise duty paid on scented suprari - Held that:- Present appeal is an offshoot of refund claim which was originally rejected by the adjudicating authority in his order dt. 30.5.2001 on limitation which is upheld by Tribunal in Final order [2005 (7) TMI 428 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] and Hon'ble High Court [2014 (9) TMI 478 - Madras High Court]. By respectfully following the order of Hon'ble High Court (supra), I hold that the demand of recovery of erroneous refund with in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appear before the Bench nor they have submitted any document or adjournment application. The appeal being very old, and also appellant is not pursuing the appeal, therefore appeal is taken up for disposal on merits based on the documents available on record. 2. The issue relates to refund claim filed on excise duty paid on scented suprari and the claim was rejected by the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise vide OIO No.21/2001 dt. 30.5.2001 on the grounds of limitation as time-ba .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Tribunal in Final Order No.1058/2005 dt. 29.7.2005 set aside the LAA order dt. 28.11.2002 and allowed the Revenue appeal. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of recovery of ₹ 2,25,044/- erroneously sanctioned along with interest vide order dt. 28.4.2006 and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 1.9.2006 upheld the OIO by relying on above Tribunal's final order dt. 29.7.2005. Hence the present appeal. 3. Ld. A. R reiterated the findings of the LAA and submits .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s issued by Registry. The appellant is not interested in pursuing their appeal and on this ground alone the appeal is liable for dismissal for want of prosecution. 5. On merits of the appeal, I find that appellant filed CMA before Hon'ble High Court, Madras and obtained an interim stay against Tribunal's Final Order No.1058/2005 dt. 29.7.2005. The appeal was kept pending as the CMA was not disposed by the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, this Bench vide note order dt. 9.5.2014 and 19. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of 2006 is reproduced as under :- "4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials laced on record, it has to be pointed out that in order to maintain a claim for refund in terms of Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, any person claiming refund of any duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty, may make an application for refund of such duty and interest before the expiry of six months from the relevant date, in the manner prescribed and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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