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 →

M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II

2016 (2) TMI 108 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Claim of refund - relevant date - entitlement to refund after final judgement - period of limitation - whether or not the appellant filed the claim for refund in time as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that:- As per Section 11 B, the relevant date means "in case where the duty becomes refundable as consequent of judgement, decree, order, or direction of appellate authority, appellate Tribunal, or any court, the date of such judgement, decree, order, or direction". It is a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r examination of the contents. Secondly, the Original Authority had given a factual finding as to whether the said communication can be treated as a valid document for determining the relevant date. He recorded that the said communication deals with recovery of outstanding arrears and also mentions about amount of ₹ 2,58,025/- due to the appellant. It is also to be noted that immediately on receipt of communication dated 19.09.2011, the Dy. Commissioner informed the appellant to file a cla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al is against the Order dated 24.02.2015 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. Certain proceedings were initiated against the appellant for demanding central excise duty of ₹ 4,62,126/- being duty payable on clearance of capital goods/scrap on which cenvat credit has been availed. On conclusion of the proceedings, the demand for the said amount was confirmed and appropriated against the amount already debited by the appellant. Penalties were also imposed on the appellant. On appeal, the 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

rejected the claim as time bar. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur vide his impugned order upheld the said rejection of refund on the ground of time bar. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the order-in-appeal dated 3.5.2011 dropped the demand of ₹ 2,58,025/- and as such, the present claim is consequential one. He further submits that they have sent a fax on 19.09.2011 staking their claim for refund of this am .....

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