Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 158 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2016 (11) TMI 158 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI - Rejection of refund claim - Refund claim not filed in prescribed form - Held that: - in the Order-in-Original it has been admitted that the respondent filed the refund claim along with documents. Also, the copy of the letter produced vide which the refund claim was filed and in the letter it is categorically mentioned that refund claim is being filed along with necessary copies of invoices etc - the decision in the case of Collector of C. Ex. Tiruchir .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issioner (Appeals) has allowed the claim of refund of the respondent. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondent-claimant is registered under the category of Goods Transport Agency Service and filed a refund claim for ₹ 13,94,848/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Eight only) and ₹ 12,03,594/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Three Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Four only) totaling to ₹ 25,98,442/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Ninety Eig .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Commissioner who vide his order dated 29.10.2012 set aside the Order-in-Original on the ground that there is no dispute that the refund applications were filed on 30.06.2009 which is totally acknowledged by the department and admitted by the original authority in para 2 of show-cause notice and adjudication order and further by relying upon the decision in the case of Rubber Wood India Vs. CC, Cochin [2006 (206) E.L.T. 536 (T)] wherein it has been held that the defects if any rectified after re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion and only a letter was filed on 30.06.2009 while the claim in proper format was filed on 17.07.2009 i.e. after six months. As per the Board Circular dated 02.01.2002 mere filing of letter is admissible only for refund of pre-deposit. For refund of any other amount, refund should be filed in proper form as per para 6 of Chapter 9 of CBEC Manual. She further submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent strongly defended .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he relied upon the following authorities: a) Collector of C. Ex. Tiruchirapalli Vs. TVS Whirlpool Ltd. - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 496 (Mad.) b) CCE, Delhi-I Vs. Arya Exports and Industries - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 89 (Del.) c) Poulose & Matthen Vs. Collector of C.Ex - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 424 (T) d) Collector Vs. Poulose & Matthen - 2000 (120) E.L.T. A64 (S.C) e) IGP Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 481 (Tri.-Chennai) f) Angiplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2010 (19) S.T.R. 83 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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