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 →

M/s Gupta Steel Rolling Mills, Mandi Gobindgarh Versus Union of India and others

2016 (1) TMI 388 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Refund of duty alongwith interest thereon - Period of limitation - The petitioner had paid the excise duty on iron and steel products made of steel ingots amounting to ₹ 1,03,670.60 in terms of notification No. 206/63. Since no duty was liable to be paid on such products, the petitioner applied for refund - Held that:- Apex Court in M/s Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Jaandhar [1988 (8) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has ruled that, "in making claims for refund before the department .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly beyond the period of three months from the date of payment of the said duty as required under Rule 11 of the 1944 Rules. The petitioner was, therefore, not entitled to any refund in terms of Rule 11 of the 1944 Rules. - Decided against the assessee. - CWP No. 19673 of 1996 - Dated:- 3-9-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. RAMENDRA JAIN., JJ. For The Petitoner : Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. By way of instant petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thereon. 2. A few relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioner had paid the excise duty on iron and steel products made of steel ingots amounting to ₹ 1,03,670.60 in terms of notification No. 206/63. Since no duty was liable to be paid on such products, the petitioner applied for refund, the details of which are as under:- i) Refund claim of ₹ 41,161.33 pertaining to the period 22.4.1972 to 7.7.1972; ii) Refund c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8.61 already paid) and out of the refund claim, an amount of ₹ 29,033.27 is not admissible being time barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as the claim pertained to the period 22.7.72 to 7.6.72 and was received on 4.6.73. Accordingly, ₹ 1905.43 were also not admissible out of 3rd claim for ₹ 36,109.50 as this part of duty was paid on flats which is not admissible under Notification No. 206/63 (Rs.34,204.07 already paid). The refund for 2nd claim has already b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le 11 of the C.E. Rules, 1944. The appellant's contention is that initially, the Appellate Collector had given the benefit of Notification No. 206/63 and the Assistant Collector had no authority to reject the claim as time barred. The second plea taken by the appellant was that their case was not covered under Rule 11. The scope of Rule 11 was restricted to claims of refund arising out of duties or charges paid through inadvertence error or misconstruction whereas the appellant's case is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llector who has given a finding that the claims were time barred. Further, it would be wrong to state that the appellant's case is not covered under Rule 11. It is clearly a case covered under 'misconstruction'. It would not be correct to hold that inadvertence error or misconstruction related to clerical or arithmatical error only. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby rejected. 5. Further, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order, Anne .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng the prayer of the petitioner, learned counsel for the revenue relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Porcelain Electrical Mfg. Co. v. Collector of C. Ex., New Delhi 1998 (98) ELT 583 (SC) to contend that the refund claim would be governed by the time limit provided under the statute and not by general law of limitation when the refund claim is filed before the departmental authorities. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find merit in the conten .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under his signatures and lodges it with officer within three months from the date of such payment or adjustment, as the case may be. 9. Under Rule 11, where a claimant had deposited any duty or charge under a misconstruction was required to lodge his claim for refund under his signatures with the concerned officer within three months from the date of such payment. 10. Rule 173J of the 1944 Rules at the relevant time prescribed time limit for recovery of short levy or refund of excess levy where .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re a claimant had filed an application under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the 1944 Rules and sought its remedies under the Statute, it would be bound by the limitation provided under the Act and the Rules. The relevant observations read thus:- 3. In challenging the order of the Tribunal the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the duty having been paid under mistake of law, the period of limitation applicable was three years. Reliance is placed on Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Aur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

troversy stands concluded by the decision of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Jaandhar, 1988 (37) ELT 478 (SC) = 1988 Supp. SCC 683.The relevant observations are extracted below: "But in making claims for refund before the departmental authority, an assessee is bound within four corners of the statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder must be adhered to. The author .....

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