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 →

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi Versus M/s Gillooram Gaurishankar

2015 (11) TMI 674 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

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 credit of the duty taken under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 w .....

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. - 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 JUDGMENT Per D N Patel, J. 1) In this Tax Appeal, the following substantial ques .....

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 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 Notification no.85/87-CE dated 01.03.1987 (Annexure 3 to the memo of appeal) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 respondent vide order dated 26th February, 2007. No substantial question of law .....

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 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 time barred. It was initially not in the prescribed formate and inputs wer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated 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, one application is to be preferred, whereas, CESTAT has observed 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

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 accordingly. The credit of the duty taken under Rule 57A of the Central Ex .....

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 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 ground that the same were barred by time since they were not made within t .....

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