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

2015 (11) TMI 360 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (11) TMI 360 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Denial of refund claim - payment of excess duty - held that:- The period extended for supply of its remaining quantity was also lapsed. Therefore as against 61,000 quintals the respondent could clear 17,329 quintals, hence excise duty paid by the respondent is in excess to what was payable and refund for an amount of ₹ 37,12,051/- arises. Refund was rejected by the Adjudicating authority only on the ground E.R.1 return shows clearance of quantity o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the respondent has paid excess duty and they were legally entitle for refund. - Decided against Revenue. - APPEAL NO. E/915/08 - Dated:- 30-6-2015 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri. Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (A.R.) ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. RKR (178) 260/07 dtd. 1/5/2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad, wherein the Ld. Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

up to 25/5/2007 from the date of issue of this re-validation order. Since the respondent could not clear the said sugar even up to 25/5/2007, the director further extended validity of period for further 90 days from the date of issue of order dated 15/6/2007. Respondent were able to clear 1739 quintal of free sale sugar as evidenced from invoices 200-322. However, no clearance was effected 2006 onwards. Hence the respondent filed refund claim for excess amount of duty deposited in anticipation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the adjudication order, respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who after going through not only the records but also from invoices, has conducted verification in the factory of the respondent and as per report given by the Superintendent (Appeals) appeal was allowed by the impugned order dated 1/5/2008, Aggrieved by the said impugned order Revenue is before me. 3. Shri Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the ground of the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

one appeared on behalf of the respondent. On the last occasion A.R. was directed to arrange to serve notice to the respondent, he stated that Jurisdictional officer made efforts to deliver notice but factory was closed, no responsible person was available, therefore notice could not be delivered. In this position, I have no option except taking the matter to disposal on the basis of the records available. 5. I have carefully considered the submission made by Ld. A. R. and perused records. 6. Fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt stating that the appellant has paid in excess. In this report, this official has indicated that,  I have verified RG 1 Register for the month of May 2006 and found Sugar clearance Quantity of November 2006 & December 2006 verified and found Sugar production and clearance. Duty paid vide TR 6 challan No. 1 & 2 of dated 05.01.2007 for ₹ 27,96,249/- only. The above view is reasonably in consonance with the Stock Position as certified by the Range Superintendent on 21-11-2007. Item .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

15 108739 113754 The matter regarding undue enrichment has been examined at lower level & hence there is no discussion on these aspects. Considering the above, and considering the fact that grounds for rejection of refund are neither legally tenable nor sound the appellant s case for refund merits consideration and in the absence of any credible contrary evidence, the appeal is allowed. I find that respondent filed refund claim on the ground that as per the order of the Director of the Sugar .....

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