TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals), the same has to be treated as having been filed within the limitation period - appellate authority has observed that if the payment of interest is erroneous on the part of the assessee they can file refund claim within the normal period of one year. There is nothing in the said observation or finding of Commissioner (Appeals) to suggest that the period of one year would start running from the date of passing of the order. There is also no provision of law to that effect. If the appellant was aggrieved with the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) in deciding on the correct rate of interest, they could have challenged the same. In fact, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal, but the same was subsequently withdrawn, thus allowing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be seen from the impugned order dt 25/10/2007, assessments pertaining to the period 2005-06 2006-07 were finalized by the appellants. As the appellants could not furnish the depot invoices and in view of the difficulties expressed by the appellants, instructions were given vide C.No. IV/4/1/2006-Tech dt 9/7/2007 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-I to finalize the provisional assessments based on the available documents submitted by the appellants. When the situation is so, contention of the appellants that provisional assessments are to be finalized within 6 months of ordering the provisional assessments is out of context. Contention that interest is payable only after finalization of assessments in the light of provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entire interest paid by them. However, he accepted the appellant's stand that as the interest was calculated @24% per annum, whereas the correct rate of interest payable during the relevant period was only 13%, the appellant is entitled to the refund of the excess payment of interest. Accordingly he sanctioned refund of ₹ 30,451,192/-. 5. Being aggrieved with the said order passed by Assistant Commissioner, Revenue filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority held the refund to be barred by limitation having been filed beyond the period of one year from the date of payment and accordingly set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the Revenue's appeal. 6. Hence the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same. In fact, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal, but the same was subsequently withdrawn, thus allowing the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) to attain finality. 9. The refund of the excess payments made by an assessee, have to be filed within a period of one year from the actual date of payment. The Revenue authorities as also the Tribunal being creature of law, cannot extend the said limitation period. As such, I agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the refund application having been filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant day, has to rejected as barred by limitation. The impugned order is accordingly upheld and appeal rejected. ( Order pronounced in open court on 24.06.2015 ) - - TaxTMI - TMITa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
