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

2015 (11) TMI 674 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

2015 (11) TMI 674 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT - 2015 (326) E.L.T. 654 (Jhar.) - Denial of refund claim - Whether a refund claim in terms of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No.85/87-CE dated 01.03.87 in respect of credit of duty taken under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which remain unutilized in respect of those consignments which were exported and sailed prior to 21.05.89, made after expiry of six months is not barred by limitation - Held that:- The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d, if the refund application is made after six months from the date of export. - Miles India Limited Vs Assistant Collector of Customs reported in [1984 (4) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] if the application is time barred, the same is liable to be dismissed - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 55 of 2007 - Dated:- 6-10-2015 - D. N. Patel And Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ. For the Petitioner : M/s Deepak Roshan, Amit Kumar For the Respondent : M/s. Darshana Poddar Mishra, Piyush Poddar JUDGM .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the appellant mainly submitted that Order-in-Original has been preferred on 21st June, 1999. Initially, there were 05 refund applications. Four refunds were given and in this matter, only one refund application has been rejected vide Order-in-Original dated 21st June, 1999. In this matter, we are concerned with, an application No.AR4/I/89-90 dated 03.04.89. The date of export is 20th May, 1989 and refund application was preferred on 22nd November, 1989 in a proper formate as required under N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orders were passed twice in Order-in-Original and also in Order-in-Appeal. 3) Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the refund claim is filed beyond the period of limitation, the same is liable to be rejected. 4) Counsel for the respondent submitted that no error has been committed by CESTAT while allowing the appeal preferred by the resp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wo. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the CESTAT while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent and, hence, this appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 5) Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent has initially claimed 05 refunds, out of which 04 refunds were given and one of the refunds i.e. AR4/I/89-90 dated 03.04.1989 was rejected mainly for the reason that it was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t in CESTAT, Kolkata which allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent dated 25th June, 2007 mainly for the reason that a notification No.85/87- CE dated 01.03.1987 permits only one refund application in a calendar year. This is an error apparent on the face of the record. 6) The Notification No.85/87-CE dated 1st March, 1987 is at Annexure 3 to the Memo of Appeal. It permits the refund application to be submitted not more than once in any quarter in a calendar year. 7) Thus, in a one quarter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n period prescribed was six months at the relevant time before the export. As per Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the period of limitation to claim a refund was six months, whereas, the application for refund was preferred beyond the period of six months. Hence also, no refund can be granted to the respondent. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the CESTAT, Kolkata. 9) Thus, the substantial question which has been raised herein above, is answered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which arises for consideration is whether the Customs Authorities are right in refusing to grant refund of duty paid and the levy whereof had become final being contested at all departmental levels. The duty was paid by the appellant without raising any protest whatsoever. It appears that thereafter, on the basis of another decision made in a different case applications were preferred for refund of duty on the ground that it was erroneously recovered. The said applications were dismissed on the .....

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