Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (11) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eals) in their two appeals. The impugned order also had been passed on the same basis that the appellants had not filed fresh claims within six months of receipt of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). As it appeared that the claims initially filed by the appellant (and rejected by the original authority) were adequate to grant them relief on their getting favourable appellate orders, the impugned order deciding the party to be ineligible for refund was found to be incorrect. Accordingly, this Tribunal had allowed these appeals on 12-10-2006. 2.When it was brought to my notice shortly afterwards that the appellants' claims had been pending when the Apex Court had passed judgment in the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1997 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and having failed therein - either partly or wholly - have resorted to writ petition or suit, they shall not be entitled to the benefit of this direction." As the order pronounced by the Tribunal on 12-10-2006 seemed inconsistent with the above directions of the Apex Court, that decision is recalled for hearing on 3-11-06. The appeals were heard and orders reserved. 3.The facts of the case are that M/s. Spic Ltd., Chennai had imported two consignments of machinery under Bills of Entry dated 4-3-1991 and 8-8-1990. Though the importer had declared a certain classification for the imported goods, they had paid a higher amount of duty in terms of the assessment by the department adopting a different classification. Later on, they had filed re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e judgment by the Apex Court in the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case, the claimants were required to file fresh claims within 60 days of the pronouncement of the judgment. The appellants had failed to do so in the Kerala State Electricity Board case. In the case of ONGC, the Tribunal had decided that any refund pursuant to Order-in-Appeal could not be allowed suo motu by the department without formal application. 5.The Counsel for the appellants argued that once the appellants had received favourable orders from the Commissioner (Appeals), the department should have granted refund amount originally claimed, suo motu. In support of his claim, he cited the following judgments :- (i)      Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8.Learned SDR highlights the ratio of the Kerala High Court's decision in Kerala State Electricity Board case (supra) and the Tribunal decision in the ONGC case both of which had been relied upon by the lower appellate authority. According to her, as per the ratio of these decisions, to be eligible for refund pursuant to a favourable Order-in-Appeal, the refund claim should be filed within the time limit prescribed in the Act (Section 11B of the Central Excise Act in both the cases) after the order. She submitted that the ratio of Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. was not relevant to the case as it dealt with a statutory provision not in existence at the material time. As regards suo motu refund following Order-in-Appeal, the learned SDR subm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respect of claims which had been pending in suits/writ appeals, the concerned petitioners should file refund claims within 60 days of pronouncement of the judgment in that case. In the instant case, the appellants had received favourable orders vide Orders-in-Appeal dated 14-6-93 and 30-10-96. Subject claims had not been pending in any proceeding before any court at the time when the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced the judgment. What the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered in Para 100 extracted above is in respect of claims involved in pending Writ petitions/Writ appeals/suits. Therefore, it cannot be said that the subject claims are governed by the directions of the Apex Court referred to above. In the Kerala State Electricity Boards case, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates