Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Kothari Products Limited Versus C.C.E. Kanpur

2016 (8) TMI 582 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Entitlement of interest on refund - from 13/3/02 (being the date when 3 months ended from the date of application) up to 13/7/04 - refund claim was allowed and disbursed on 13/7/04 - Held that:- the impugned order is hit by the ‘doctrine of merger'. The Id. Commissioner (Appeals) who is the subordinate authority than the Tribunal cannot enter into the question which has been decided by the Tribunal and have attained finality. Thus I hold that the impugned order is hit by the 'doctrine of merger' .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

his order dated 7/6/2000. Therefore the concerned authority is directed to grant interest for the period ending on 3 (three) months from the date of application dated 11/12/2001 till the date of disbursement of refund, that is 13/6/2004. - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether an appeal can be filed against a simple communication letter - Held that:- it is found that the Commissioner appeals in error in holding that there is no appealable order. Any order or communication wh .....

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, as no appeal can be filed against a simple communication letter under section 35F of the Act. 2. The brief facts are that, there was a dispute as regards the classification of the product of the appellant and vide show cause notice dated 7/12/2000 additional duty was demanded. The appellant had paid the duty demand under protest totalling ₹ 1,05,74,234/- Subsequently vide order dated 31.10.2001 the Show Cause Notice was finalised and dropped. The appellant filed refund claim on 11/12/20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fter refund for ₹ 1,05,74,234/- was sanctioned and disbursed vide Order-in-Original dated 11/6/2004. As regards interest it was observed I find that the refund in the instant case has been allowed on the basis of Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 01/7/2003 and the party have submitted their request for refund on 19/4/04 in this office hence the refund has been sanctioned within 3 (three) months of the application. Further explanation to Section 11 BB provides that "where any order 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

r the provisions of section 11 BB they had entitled to grant of refund from the date ending on 3 (three) months, from filing of refund claim. As the refund claim's is allowed and disbursed on 13/7/04 they are entitled to interest from 13/3/02 (being the date when 3 months ended from the date of application) up to 13/7/04. It was further emphasised that the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal with consequential relief. In response thereto the Assistant Commissioner communicated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

preferred appeal before Id. Commissioner (Appeals) who have vide the present impugned order rejected the appeal on the ground that there is no appealable order within the meaning of section 35/35F of the Act, 4. Heard the parties. 5. The Id. Counsel for appellant have argued that the issue is no longer res integra and the relevant date from which interest is payable, have been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Cement Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sumer welfare fund. The assessee gets actual refund only when order is made with reference to any of the clauses of proviso to sub-section 2. Thereby setting aside the order of refund being order dated 30/9/13. 6. Learnedly DR for the revenue have argued that there is no error in the impugned order and the appeal is fit to be dismissed. He further points out from the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 13/6/2004 stating that the claim for interest have been expressly denied and as 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

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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