Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (12) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of ARE -1. Inasmuch as the invoices / export invoices / shipping bills / bills of lading and airways bills and product-wise invoices used and cenvat credit taken on each invoice bill was certified by the Cost Accountant and produced. It is for the first time in April, 2008 that the appellants were directed to submit the fact of showing the dues from the Government in their balance sheet. Apart from the fact that the said reflection of dues from the Government from the balance sheet is not relevant for the purpose of grant of refund, the fact remains that the Revenue slept over the refund claims for the period of two years. Meanwhile the manual provisions referred to by the learned advocate clearly show that the deficiency in papers should b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pearing for the Revenue, I find that the appellant, who was engaged in the manufacture of two wheeled motor vehicles were exporting the same and as they were not in a position to utilize the Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the inputs, they filed three refund claims in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The said refund claims were filed on 5.12.2005, 17.2.2006 and 30.6.2006. The same were kept pending at the original adjudicating authority level and it is only after the appellants, in 2008, wrote letters to the their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities mentioning that they understand that refund claims have been found to be admissible and since they are interested in getting the amount involved in the refund claim urgently, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er (Appeals) is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. Madras Rubber Factory v. Union of India (supra) wherein in Para 40 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held that there is no estoppel in law against an assessee in taxation matters. Besides this, we also find that the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 484 (S.C.) has held that right conferred under the statute cannot be given up on the basis of concession made by any party to the lis. In our view the ratio of the above judgments of the Apex Court are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, just because the appellant by the letters addressed to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 08, when the Revenue asked for the some more time. They have contended that in terms of para 3.2 of Chapter 9 of the manual, which prescribes the manner of scrutiny of the refund claim and sanction any deficiency in the refund claim has to be pointed out to the appellant within 15 days of receipt. Inasmuch as in the present case, there was no communication from the department for a period of about two years, the claim of interest cannot be rejected on that ground. Learned advocate has also drawn my attention to the observations made by the Tribunal in the earlier order that it is only in 2008, the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities woke up to the pendency of these refund claims and also on the possibility of having to pay the interes .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd claim were not taken up for disposal prior to April, 2008. The provisions of section 11BB of the Central Excise Act are clear and not ambiguous requiring the Revenue to sanction interest if the refund claims were not disposed of within a period of three months from the date of filing. 8. Otherwise also, I find that earlier Tribunal order allowed the assessees appeal with instruction to the Revenue to pay the interest to the assessee. There appeals were allowed and were not remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide the appellants claim of interest afresh. The said order of the Tribunal having attained the finality, it was not open to the jurisdictional Assistance Commissioner to redecide the issue of interest. He was on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates