Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Customs And Service Tax Visakhapatnam-I

2016 (343) E.L.T. 360 (Tri. - Bang.) - Claim of refund of excess interest (@24% instead of @13%) paid on differential duty - Bar of limitation - Held that:- Admittedly the refund application filed by the appellant on 08.04.2009 is beyond the period of limitation. The appellant's contention is that they had challenged the earlier order of finalization and the Commissioner (Appeals) had directed them to file a refund claim instead of challenging the rate of interest. Inasmuch as they have filed re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 In fact, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal, but the same was subsequently withdrawn, thus allowing the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) to attain finality. - refund application having been filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant day, has to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 25.10.2007. In terms of the said order, the appellant was directed to pay differential duty of ₹ 17,75,260/- along with interest. The appellant deposited the said duty and calculated the interest at the rate of 24%. 2. The said assessment order was challenged by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that they were not required to pay interest at all and in any case have paid excess interest in respect of the differential du .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

voices 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 paya .....

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 thereof: contained in Rule 7(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for determining the period for which interest is payable. Issue in the present case is not non-payment of interest or any demand thereof. Differential duty along with interest was paid voluntarily and was also not under protest. If the appellants feel that payment of interest is erroneous on their part, remedy for this would be to file a refund claim within the normal period of one year from the date of payment and claiming relief o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner, who opined that the appellant cannot claim the refund of 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 file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

passed by the original adjudicating authority as also by Commissioner (Appeals), I find that admittedly the refund application filed by the appellant on 08.04.2009 is beyond the period of limitation. The appellant's contention is that they had challenged the earlier order of finalization and the Commissioner (Appeals) had directed them to file a refund claim instead of challenging the rate of interest. Inasmuch as they have filed refund application within a period of one year from the date o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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