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 Jaya Hind Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I

2015 (12) TMI 1570 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Rejection of refund claim - grounds of limitation - Held that: - The transaction on which duty was paid was a domestic clearance. The appellants have not exported the goods themselves but have supplied against the CT-1 to a domestic buyers who may have in turn exported the goods. Commissioner (Appeals) has made an error in considering it as export and relying on clause (a) to the Explanation (B) of Section 11B for calculating the period of limitation. He should have relied on clause (f) to Expla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lish their case against unjust enrichment - Matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the issue of unjust enrichment after considering the documents produced by the appellant. - Jurisdiction of Tribunal to hear the appeal - Held that: - The appellants had paid duty on the domestic transaction - refund sought cannot be equated with the rebate - Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear this appeal. - Appeal disposed off - matter remanded to decided the issue of unjust enrichmen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cates after completion of quantity mentioned in the CT-1 certificate, transaction value between the appellant and M/s Mahindra & Mahindra were revised upwards. As a result in May, 2009, the appellants paid duty on the differential value. The appellant, on realizing their mistake, filed a refund claim in April, 2010. The said refund claim was rejected by the lower authorities on the grounds of limitation and unjust enrichment. While arriving at the relevant date for the filing of refund claim .....

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 of calculating the period of limitation in this case should be date of payment of duty which in the month of May, 2009 and not the date of export, which was from June, 2008 to January, 2009. He further argued that they had produced a disclaimer certificate, which was summarily rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). He also argued that they were not give due notice on the allegation of unjust enrichment and hence could not produced the evidence. They produced a certificate from the Chartered A .....

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