New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (12) TMI 482 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (12) TMI 482 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Refund claim - export of goods - Notification no. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 - manufacture and export of soya bean extract - time bar - whether the refund claim, filed before the wrong authority in time, and subsequently filed with delay before the proper authority, is to be held as filed within time? - Held that: - the refund claim, which has been filed within time before the wrong authority, is to be held as filed in time. I also note that the autho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

denovo orders - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. ST/1382/2011-ST [SM] - Final Order No. 55610 /2016-ST [SM] - Dated:- 30-11-2016 - Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Rajesh Rawal, Advocate for the Applicants Shri H.C. Saini, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The present appeal is directed against the order dated 13.06.2011, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Indore. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture and export of soya bean extract. They filed a re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ative. 3. Notification No. 41/2007 specifies that the refund claims are to be filed on quarterly basis, within a period of 6 months from the end of the quarter. The dispute is with reference to the claim for the quarter April to June 2009. The claim is required to be filed by 31.12.2009 as per the time limit in the notification. It is seen from the record that the refund claim was filed on 31.12.2009 before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Indore, even though it is required to be filed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Notification No. 41/2007. Accordingly, they have rejected the refund claim on the ground of time bar. The submission of the learned counsel is that the claim was originally filed on the last date i.e. 31.12.2009. However, it has been filed before the wrong authority. By the time it was returned and filed before the proper authority, the claim has been held as time barred. He have relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. AIA Engineering .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tly as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning, Weaving reported in 1995(77) ELT 474(SC). He also added that the refund claim was returned with some observations about non compliance of certain conditions, which has not been examined by the Original Authority. 5. The facts are not in dispute. The main question for decision is whether the refund claim, filed before the wrong authority in time, and subsequently filed with delay before the proper authority, is to be held .....

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