Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shimnit Kiwalite Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs (ACC & Import) Mumbai

2015 (11) TMI 1150 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that:- the mere fact that the order of the appellate authorities is not "acceptable" to the department-in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject-matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. It this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws

Refund application was duly submitt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

All the documents having been submitted, the authorities are required to follow the CBEC instructions referred to above. We do not know if they have obtained CBEC instructions not to implement the Tribunal Order of 10.4.2013 granting consequential relief. More than two years have passed but relief has not been given to the appellant in defiance of CBEC Order and Supreme Court decision - Therefore in terms of Rule 40 & 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, we direct the Assistant Commissioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/13/CSTB/C-I d. 10.4.2013 passed by the CESTAT Mumbai Bench. 2. The facts are that under an order passed by Commissioner, the value of goods imported by the applicant was enhanced. Duty was demanded on enhanced value and penalties were also imposed. However Tribunal vide above order rejected the enhancement in value. Consequently set aside the demand of duty and penalties and confiscation. Therefore, the applicant filed a refund claim of ₹ 13,70,35,316/- which includes ₹ 2 Crores dep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntant and original copies of Bills of Entry and original TR 6 challans. The applicant wrote to the Commissioner on 23.6.2014 stating that the department should have refunded the entire amount suo moto, which was deposited as pre-deposit in terms of Section 129E of the Act or as attachment of their amount lying with mutual funds. Applicant also made reference to CBEC Circular No. 275/37-/CX BA dt. 2.1.2002 which states that refund application under Section 27(1) should not be insisted upon in suc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tayed by a competent authority. The appellant have referred to Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. 1991 (55) ELT 433 (SC). They are referred to various judgments of the Tribunal holding a direct view where the Tribunal's order is not implemented. 3. This case has come up a few times. On 6.7.2015 we had asked the concerned officer to appear and explain why refund has not been sanctioned despite instructions of Board in such matters. We 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

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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