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 →

CCE, Indore Versus M/s N.H.K. Springs Limited

2016 (6) TMI 153 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 assessee deposits the amount by making a debit entry in their PLA account d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 person does not arise. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 respondent would be entitled to the interest. Therefore, no reason found to interfer .....

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 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 before the authorities and the valuation dispute was settled in their favour 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

8377; 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 of the Revenue, cannot allow the Revenue to reject the claim on the issue 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

h 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. Such refund application was not accepted by the Revenue and was returned after .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mount 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 enrichment, we find that the said deposit was made by the appellant as a lumps .....

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