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 92 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (12) TMI 92 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Refund claims - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - manufacture of two wheeled motor vehicles - the appellants were engaged in exporting the manufactured goods, and they were not in a position to utilize the Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the inputs - Held that: - The refund claims were admittedly filed in the year 2005-2006 and was laying with the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities till 2008. Prior to April, 2008 no inquiries were made by 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

s 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 be pointed out to the assessee within a period of 15 days. There is no reason shown in the impug .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 only expected to quantify the interest and pay the same to the assessee in terms of earlier order of the Tribunal and it was not open to him to redecide the issue of interest - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

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 rejected two appeals as barred by limitation and the third appeal on the ground that the appellant themselves have foregone their claim of interest. 3. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was put to challenge before the Tribunal. Tribunal in the matter reported as Hero Motors Ltd. vs. CCE, Ghaziabad [2014 (307) ELT 138 (Tri-Del)] observed that there is no estoppels in the taxation matters and consent given by the assessee cannot take away their right which is otherwise available to th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tional Assistant Commissioner giving up their claims for interest for the period of delay. This decision of the Commissioner (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 I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lay in sanction of the refund claims, they would not be estopped from challenging the denial of interest and claiming the same, when they are entitled for the same under the statutory provisions of Section 11BB. The impugned order is set aside and the Department is directed to pay the interest in terms of the provisions of Section 11BB. The appeals filed by the appellant are accordingly allowed. 4. The matter was again taken up by the appellants jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, who san .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

site document only on 28.04.08, the appellants claim of interest from the date of filing the refund on the expiry of three months from the date of filing of refund claims cannot be entertained. 6. I find that the appellant s contention that refund claims were filed in 2005-06 along with requisite documents and there was no action in respect of same till April, 2008, 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 pres .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

authorities woke up to the pendency of these refund claims and also on the possibility of having to pay the interest under section 11 BB for the period of delay beyond the period of 3 months from the date of filing of refund claims, further inquiries were made in the year 2008. 7. After having appreciated the submissions made by both the sides, I find that there is no dispute on the facts. The refund claims were admittedly filed in the year 2005-2006 and was laying with the jurisdictional Centra .....

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