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 Raymond Limited Versus CCE, Raipur

2016 (10) TMI 730 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Rejection of refund claim - reversal of CENVAT credit under protest - period of limitation bar u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - There is no murmur or protest or disagreement with the view taken by the inspecting officers as can be inferred from this letter. It further emerges that the appellant has taken a stand before the Department that the reversal of Cenvat credit was under protest only at the time of filing the refund claims for the first time on 22/12/2000 as well as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Prashant Shrivastava, Advocate - for the appellant. Shri S. Nunthuk, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) - for the Respondent. ORDER The present appeal is filed against the order dated 12/01/2016 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Raipur. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in compliance to the order of remand passed by the Tribunal vide order No. 55201 dated 09/1/13 in appeal No. E/ 1441/2010 (SM). The dispute is with reference to the refund claims .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ut of these two claims, the claim for ₹ 2,45,885/stands paid and the rest stand rejected on the ground of time bar. The issue has come before this Tribunal three times already. In the last remand vide the order referred above the issue was remanded as follows:- "7.1 The learned DR had been asked to file his written submissions on this point but the same have not been filed. In view of this notwithstanding the fact that this is the 3rd round of litigation, the matter has to be remanded .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vation of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in para 33 of its judgment in the case of Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (supra), would be applicable and in that case the limitation period would run from the date of discovery of mistake. The date of discovery of mistake has to be ascertained on the basis of appellant's correspondence on this issue with the department. If prior to the filing of incomplete refund claims on 22/12/2000 and 15/01/01, the appellant had made correspondence with the de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ll as on 28th and 29th of December, 1998 had been made by the appellant on their own and accordingly held that both the refund claims were barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. In the present appeal, the appellant has drawn my attention to the order-in-original dated 27/8/2001 in which he has drawn my attention to the first paragraph in which the following wordings appear :- "The party was availing Modvat credit on inputs namely Polyester tow, which was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

96 to December' 1998". 4. He accordingly submits that reversals were made only on being pointed out by the Department. Though the reversals were made to appear as done voluntarily, his submission is that the reversals should be considered as having been made under protest in the light of the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CST, Chennai vs. Wardes Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 (22) S.T.R. 274 (Mad.) as well as the decision of Hon'ble High Cou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant as well as Shri R.K. Mishra, learned DR for the Revenue. The DR, while reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, he submits that the letter referred to by the appellant and discussed by Commissioner (Appeals) reads as follows : "This has reference to your visit for inspection of our factory during the period 26/12/98 to 29/12/98. As pointed out during the inspection, we have reversed the credit on Polyester Two in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indo Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2010 (254) E.L.T. 237 (Guj.). The date of detection of mistake was to be ascertained on the basis of appellant's correspondence on this issue with the Department, prior to filing of incomplete refund claims on 22/12/2000 and 15/1/2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the remand proceedings has referred to the letter produced by the appellant before him by way of corres .....

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