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 Facor Alloys Limited Versus CCE, ST & C, Visakhapatnam

2017 (4) TMI 950 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Rejection of refund claim - N/N. 41/2007 - rejection on account of time limitation - Held that: - The appellant has confined the contest to refund claim in respect of October 2007 to December 2007 in the present appeal. If the period of six months is computed as provided in the amendment of 32/2008-ST the refund claim is well within the period of six months. The amendment dated 18.11.2008 uses the word that for the words sixty days the words six months shall be substituted - impugned order 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

und claim. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants who are engaged in manufacture of High Carbon Ferro Chrome are also exporting their products. The appellants have filed refund claim in terms of Notification Nos. 40/2007-ST and 41/2007-ST for an amount of ₹ 6,12,082/- being service tax paid in respect of services used by them for export of goods. The appellants had filed refund claim dated 06.05.2008 for the three different quarters namely July 2007 to September 2007, October 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellant, the Ld. Counsel Ms. A.S.K. Swetha, submitted that the appellant is not contesting the refund claim in respect of quarter July 2007 to September 2007 for the reason that the amount is very less. In regard to the refund claim for October 2007 to December 2007, she submitted that the authorities below have wrongly rejected the refund claim on the ground of being time barred. It is pointed out by her that Notification No. 41/2007-ST has been amended by Notification No. 32/2008-ST dated 18.1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e of CCE, Surat Vs. Essar Steel Limited [2010 (9) TMI 334-CESTAT-Ahmd] and the case Bandedkar Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CCE, Goa [2015 (11) TMI 221-CESTAT-Mumbai]. 4. Against this, the Ld. AR, Sh. M. Chandra Bose reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellants have filed the refund claim on 06.05.2008. The amendment brought forth by Notifications Nos. 32/2008-ST and 33/2008-ST extending the limitation period from sixty days to six months does not have any retrospect .....

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