Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Fristam Pumps India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

2016 (11) TMI 778 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Refund claim - Held that: - Since the appellant has not contested the demand raised in the show-cause notice dated 4.9.1996, which has attained finality, filing refund claim before the lower authorities stating that the demand in the show-cause notic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r (Judicial) Mrs. Kranti R Rathi, Advocate for Appellant Shri Ashutosh Nath, AC (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per M. V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. P-I/443/05 dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

emand of ₹ 24,01,417/- was wrong and did not take into account various factors and they were entitled for refund claim of the said amount of ₹ 11,12,503/-. The appellant calculated this refund claim by claiming various deductions, value 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

ved by such an order, an appeal was preferred to first appellate authority who also concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant draws my attention to the factual matrix of the case and submits that the .....

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 if these are excluded, they are not required to make such payment of the duty and having paid this amount of ₹ 11,12,503/- the refund should be sanctioned to them. It is also the case that as per Article 265 of Constitution of India, no 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

he case of Gurucharan Industrial Works Vs. UOI 1988 (33) ELT 648 (All), Goldstone Engineers Ltd. Vs. UOI 2005 (181) ELT 11 (AP), Laxmi Starch Ltd. Vs. UOI 1993 (67) ELT 769 (AP), Unichem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2003 (14 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cause notice dated 4.9.1996, wherein demand of ₹ 24,01,417/- was raised on adjudication has attained finality in the hands of the Apex Court. The show-cause notice was adjudicated and demands were confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was contested on these points before the adjudicating authority or the Tribunal or the Apex Court, learned Counsel was not able to answer the same, but only submitted that the demands raised in the show-cause notice were in respect of eligibility to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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