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. RFS India Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Delhi-I

2016 (9) TMI 773 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Rejection of refund claim - SAD - ground of limitation - notification number 102/2007-CUS date 14.09.2007. The notification provides a period of one year for claiming the refund by treating the relevant date as date of payment of duty - provisional assessment - refund claim filed rejected on the ground that they should be filed after finalization of assessment - Held that: - Revenue cannot first refuse to accept the refund claim on the ground of provisional assessment and then to reject the same .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

31/2011-CU(DB) - FINAL ORDER NO. 53131/2016-CU(DB) - Dated:- 10-8-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Shri V.Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Vaibhav, Advocate for the Applicants Shri K. Poddar, DR for the Respondent ORDER After rejecting the request for adjournment we proceed to decide the appeal itself. Accordingly we have heard Ld. DR and have gone through the impugned orders. 2. It is seen that the appellants imported certain goods and paid special additional duty of customs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

from the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) that after verification of the documents and after satisfying himself about the fulfillment of the conditions he rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation. The notification provides a period of one year for claiming the refund by treating the relevant date as date of payment of duty. 4. On appeal against the said order the appellant took a categorical stand that against the various Bills of Entries, they filed the refund .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) who set aside the order and there is no dispute about the said order of Commissioner (A). 6. It is seen that thereafter also the appellant continued to import the goods and the Bills of Entries were being assessed provisionally. However, as this refund claim in respect of the earlier Bill of Entry were not accepted by the Revenue on account of provisional nature of assessment, it seems that the appellant did not file any refund claim in respect of the subsequent Bill of Entries on account of 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

 

 

 

 

 

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