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

2016 (5) TMI 940 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (5) TMI 940 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Refund claim - made by debit entry in their RG-23A Pt. I - Duty deposited under protest - Held that:- the Revenue has nowhere given any details as to how the decisions relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), which involve the same legal issue, are not applicable to the facts of the case. As regards the Tribunal decision in the case of CCE, Aurangabad vs. BCL Forgings Ltd. [2005 (7) TMI 231 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], which stands relied upon by Commissioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the said decision is not applicable in as much as in the present case the respondents have voluntarily paid the duty.

Apart from finding that the decisions relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) are fully applicable to the facts of the case, it is found that his observations and findings that the debit entry was countersigned by Superintendent (Preventive) and the show cause notice itself mentions that the debit was made on pursuance of the officers of the Central Excise Divi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

peals) Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. After hearing both the sides, duly represented by Shri S. Nanthuk, learned Jt. CDR for the Revenue and Shri Rahul Tangri, learned C.A. for the respondent, we find that the respondent debited their Cenvat credit account to the extent of ₹ 14,39,577/- in the year 1996, on various dates, by following the Revenue s view that waste and scrap of capital goods cleared by them is required be cleared on payment of duty. However, thereafter proceedings .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y them by debit entries in RG-23A Pt. II, in 1996. Accordingly, they filed a refund claim on 29/8/2002 i.e. within a period of one month of the rejection of Revenue s appeal by the Tribunal. The said amount for refund was subsequently reduced to ₹ 13,79,912/- on the ground that amount of ₹ 59,665/- already stands recovered by them from their customer. 4. Such refund claim was proposed to be denied by the Revenue on the ground of time bar, the respondent took a categorical stand befor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal laying down that filing of an appeal, itself amounts to protest and there was no requirement to file a formal letter of protest. 5. However, the Original Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim. The said order stands appealed against before Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal by observing as under :- 7. In the case of CCE, Aurangabad vs. BCL Forgings Ltd. - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 922 (Tri. - Mumbai), it has been held that the appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nion of India - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 285 (Guj.), it was held by the Honble High Court of Gujarat that payment having been made by assessee pursuant to demand made and threat made by the Superintendent was not a voluntary payment but was to be treated as payment under protest and hence the limitation period under Section 11B was not applicable. 8. In view of the above, the short question that arises for consideration is whether the debit made by the appellant in the year 1996 amounts to payment of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e notice dated 11/2/2002 has mentioned as follows :- .. the above amount of ₹ 14,39,577/- was debited by the notice on pursuance of the officers of Central Excise Division, Sagar (Emphasis added) 9. All these things prove that the payment made by the appellant was not voluntary. The insistence of the departmental officers coupled with the fact that the appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Commissioner go to prove that the payment made by the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eipt of the refund application in the office of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner . 6. Being aggrieved with the above order of Commissioner (Appeals) Revenue has filed the present appeal. 7. On going through the grounds of appeal it is seen that apart from reiterating that the said debit was made by the Assessee without any threat or pressure, it also stands contended that the decisions relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) are not applicable to the facts of 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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