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 Banswara Syntex Ltd. Versus CCE, Jaipur-II

2016 (12) TMI 23 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 HIGH COURT] examined similar set of facts. It .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 findings of the lower authority. - Appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d 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 Rules does not cover a situation where the refu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntral 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 admitted for sanction. We find that the Boa .....

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