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 1268 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2016 (11) TMI 1268 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI - Rejection of refund claim - time bar - Held that: - any refund application beyond period specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act could not be entertained unless the refund was as a consequence of declaration of a provision as unconstitutional - the refund claim filed by the appellant is time-barred - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/21879/2014-SM - Final Order No. 20821/2016 - Dated:- 23-9-2016 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under Bills of Entry No. 237352 and 237353 both dated 10.12.2008. The proper officer assessed the Bills of Entry correctly by applying the rate of duty of Additional Customs Duty @ 10% in terms of Notification No. 2/2008 CE dated 01.03.2008 as amended by Notification No. 58/2008 CE dated 07.12.2008. However the CHA while calculating the Additional Customs duty @ 14% as obtaining earlier, remitted the duty amount in excess of the amount of duty assessed by the proper of .....

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 barred. Aggrieved by the said order appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order dated 24.03.2014 rejected the refund claim as time barred by upholding the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the excess amount has been paid due to clerical mistake and the same cannot b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ang.) c) CCE (Appeals), Hyderabad Vs. R.M. Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (198) E.L.T. 45 (Tri.-Bang.) d) CC (Import), Mumbai Vs. Nicolas Piramal India Ltd. - 2008 (225) E.L.T. 99 (Tri.-Mumbai) e) Union of India Vs. ITC Ltd. - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (S.C) f) Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CC (Imports), Mumbai - 2014 (300) E.L.T. 255 (Tri.-Mum.) 4. On the other hand the learned AR submitted that the amount paid by the appellant was duty though it was in excess than what was required to be paid. She furth .....

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