Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

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

2016 (1) TMI 388 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - 2016 (334) E.L.T. 467 (P & H) - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fund of duty paid for the period in question was lodged on 4.6.1973 which was clearly 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to direct the respondents to refund the amount of excise duty along with interest 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 clai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iala is admissible to the party out of the Ist claim for ₹ 41,161.23 (Rs.9,938.61 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 Notifica .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

9033.27 and ₹ 1905.43 on the ground that the claims were time barred under Rule 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 pai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as per the directive of the Collector (Appeals) was considered by the Assistant Collector 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 here .....

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 law and as such the duty recovered would be without authority of law. 7. Opposing 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 l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ruction, shall be refunded unless the claimant makes an application for such refund 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 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

he Apex Court in Porcelain Electrical Mfg. Co's case (supra), has held that where 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 appli .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ourt held that the period of limitation was three years. 4. In our opinion, the controversy 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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d by it should be processed and considered under the general law of limitation. 12. The application for refund of duty paid for the period in question was lodged on 4.6.1973 which was clearly 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. 13. The claim of the petitioner under Rule 173J of the 1944 Rules has also been refuted in .....

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