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

2016 (12) TMI 23 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (12) TMI 23 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Rejection of refund claim - additional duties of excise - Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 as amended by Notification No. 13/2007-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2007 - time bar - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules does not cover a situation where the refund can be granted in respect of final products cleared for domestic consumption - Held that: - the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CCE, Coimbatore vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd., [2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Hon’ble High Court held that time period of one year should be reckoned the date of export of goods. As such, we find that the impugned order is correct with reference to rejection of this claim. - Regarding the refund of input duty of ₹ 29,57,205/- claimed under Rule 5, we note that the said inputs have been used in the manufacture of goods cleared for home consumption. In such situation provisions of Rule 5 has no application and as such we find no justification to interfere with 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

ent appeal is relating to rejection of refund claim of additional duties of excise. The refund claim consisting of two components, ₹ 24,23,248/- relatable to input credit in respect of goods used in the manufacture of final product exported by the appellant and ₹ 29,57,205/- relatable to inputs used in the final products cleared for home consumption. First amount was rejected on the question of time bar and the second amount was rejected on the ground that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rul .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the present case, the appellant exported the goods in the year 2004 and filed the refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on 27.08.2007 before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The refund claim was filed well beyond the period of one year from the date of shipment. The appellants pleaded that they have filed refund claim within one year of clarification dated 22.03.2007 of the Board and hence should be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) examined similar set of facts. It was held that the notification prescribed a period of one year as provided under Section 11B for making the application for refund. The Hon ble High Court recorded that though no specific relevant date is prescribed in the Notification, the relevant date must be the date on which the final products are cleared for export. If any other conclusion is arrived, it will result in disentitling any person to make a claim for cenvat credit. Accordingly, the Hon ble Hi .....

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