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 , Raja Pouches. Versus , Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur

2016 (11) TMI 152 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Compounded levy scheme - manufacture of chewing tobacco - abatement - refund of duty - limitation bar - section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - whether the provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act can be adopted for deciding the refund claim arising in terms of the compounded levy scheme, for the purpose of determining the limitation? - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2011 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] .....

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 being a comprehensive scheme in itself, the general provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules stand excluded. - It is not open to the Revenue to reject the refund claim under section 11 B of the Central Excise Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 50443 of 2016-(SM) - Order No. FO/53642/2016-(SM) - Dated:- 6-9-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Appellants By : Ms. Asmita A Nayak, Advocate Respondent By : Shri S Nunthuk, AR ORDER Per Ms. Archan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the fact that the appellants are entitled to abatement and the consequent refund of duty paid by them in terms of said compounded levy scheme, is not being disputed by the authorities below. However, the abatement claim and the consequent refund arising out of the same, stand rejected only on the ground of limitation inasmuch as the same was filed after the normal period of one year provided under section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The appellants stand is that the provisions o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es, I find that the sole issue required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act can be adopted for deciding the refund claim arising in terms of the compounded levy scheme, for the purpose of determining the limitation. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2011 (265) ELT 321 (SC)] has observed that the compounded levy scheme is a separate scheme from the normal scheme fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

would equally apply to the provisions of section 11B of the Act relating to time limitation for refund. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that the importing one scheme of tax administration to a different scheme is not appropriate and would disturb the smooth functioning of such unique scheme. Time limit prescribed under one scheme could be unwarranted for another scheme. As such, I am of the view that issue having been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was not open t .....

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