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 1127 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2016 (11) TMI 1127 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Entitlement to interest - Appropriation of rebate sanctioned against the rebate sanctioned earlier erroneously - Held that: - the issue whether the appellant is eligible for the rebate of ₹ 21,18,36,117/- has attained finality and said rebate for the earlier period has already been sanctioned and paid to the appellant. It is brought out form the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) that the appropriation was erroneous. On such fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3 - FINAL ORDER No.A/30971 to 30973/2016 - Dated:- 14-10-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri B. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P.S. Reddy, AR for the Respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] 1. The issue involved in these three appeals being the same they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P and P medicaments falling under Chapter Heading No.3004 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y, appropriating the rebate, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals). The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the appellants, observing that the appropriation of the sanctioned rebate against ₹ 21,18,36,117/- is erroneous as the matter has not attained finality. The appellants vide letter requested the Dy. Commissioner to grant the refund along with interest. The rebate claims were thus taken for process and in the abvoe three appeals, the appellants we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Ld. Counsel, Shri B.Seshadri Rao, submitted that the amount of rebate of ₹ 21,18,36,117/- has been sanctioned to the appellants after several rounds of litigation and therefore, the said issue has presently attained finality. He submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) in the Order-in-Appeal having observed that the appropriation is erroneous, ought to have granted interest from 3 months from the date of rebate application. He drew support from the decision laid in the case of Ranbaxy .....

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