GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 153 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (6) TMI 153 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (338) E.L.T. 317 (Tri. - Del.) - Refund claim - Period of limitation - claim was filed on 29.07.2004 which was returned on the ground of pre-mature inasmuch as investigation about the valuation work was still going on, accordingly, appellant resubmitted their claim on 28.10.2005, after the completion of the investigation - Held that:- there is no date available on record with regard to completion of the investigation. Otherwise also we note that when an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4, is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation. Inasmuch as the same was within the period of limitation, we agree with the views of the Commissioner (Appeals). - Unjust enrichment - deposit was made by the appellant as a lumpsum amount by making debit entry in their PLA account without raising any supplementary invoice or any other document - Held that:- if no invoice was ever raised by the respondent, the question of recovery of the said amount from any other p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- original claim filed on 29.07.2004 in terms of the provisions to Section 11BB of the Act - Held that:- it is found that there was no order on the valuation and it is during the investigation itself , the valuation was found in favour of the assessee. Otherwise also, the assessee was under no legal obligation to make the deposit during the investigation. As such we agree with the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that having filed the refund application on 29.07.2004, the responde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Ms. Neha Garg, ld. DR for the Revenue and Shri Vipul Agarwal, ld. Advocate for the respondent- assessee. It is seen that as a result of some valuation dispute in respect of the clearances made by the respondent to their sister unit they were asked to pay some additional amount of duty. Accordingly, the appellant paid a sum of ₹ 61,808/- well in advance in their PLA account on 29.03.2004. Subsequently they produced CAS-4 certificate be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on. The said refund claim was further revised by them bringing it down to ₹ 40,820/-, after making adjustment of ₹ 20,988/- which they were required to pay during the period 2003-04. 2. On appeal against the same Commissioner (Appeals) observed that admittedly claim was filed on 29.07.2004. The appellant having state their right to claim of refund of the said amount as early as in July, 2004, the subsequent return of the same and refilling of the same in October, 2005, at the behest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aim would not be hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. 3. Being aggrieved with the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 4. After hearing both the sides, we find that two legal issues as to whether the refund claim filed by the respondent was barred by limitation and as to whether the same was hit by unjust enrichment. As regards bar of limitation, we find that the appellant debited the duty in their PLA on 22.03.2004 and claim was filed on 29.07.2004. Su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

In any case the assessee has no legal obligation to make a deposit of said amount during the pendency of the investigation which dispute ultimately got resolved in their favour. As such application filed by the respondent on 29.07.2004 in respect of the deposit made by them on 22.03.2004, is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation. Inasmuch as the same was within the period of limitation, we agree with the views of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. As regards unjust en .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Advanced Search


Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

20-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

19-7-2017 IT

19-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

21-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

20-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

20-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

More Circulars



|| 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