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 →

Texport Clothing Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore, Karnataka

2015 (12) TMI 947 - CESTAT BENGLALORE

Refund of CENVAT credit accumulated - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Held that:- If a refund claim for the period from October 2006 to December 2006 was returned pointing out certain deficiencies, the appellant should have resubmitted the claim for the same period and segregated the claim for January to March 2007 and submitted it separately. If they do not want to claim refund for October and November 2006, the refund claim would have been filed only for December 2006. Unless, I am able 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

ned. - Matter remanded back - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal(s) Involved: C/775/2010-SM, C/776/2010-SM - Final Order No. 20551-20552 / 2015 - Dated:- 6-3-2015 - SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, J. For The Appellant : Mr. Akbar Basha, C.A. For The Respondent : Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Both the appeals involve a common issue namely refund of CENVAT credit accumulated and claimed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Appeal No. C/775/2010 2. This appeal relates to refund claim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cies in the claim filed for the period from October 2006 to December 2006. In my opinion, this claim cannot be accepted. If a refund claim for the period from October 2006 to December 2006 was returned pointing out certain deficiencies, the appellant should have resubmitted the claim for the same period and segregated the claim for January to March 2007 and submitted it separately. If they do not want to claim refund for October and November 2006, the refund claim would have been filed only for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efore this ground cannot be sustained. 4. Entire amount of refund claim amounting to ₹ 94,176/- has been rejected on the ground that appellant had filed the claim before making the payment. It was submitted that payment was made subsequently. The learned counsel relied upon J.K. Sugar Ltd. Vs CCE Meerut [2011(270)E.L.T.225 (Tri-Del)]. I would leave it to the original authority to consider the issue since demand required detailed discussion as to when the credit was taken; when the payment .....

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