GST Helpdesk   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
GST - Acts SGST - Acts GST - FAQ GST Rates, Exemption CGST Notif. IGST Notif. Exempt Income Salary income
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (6) TMI 755 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

2017 (6) TMI 755 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH - TMI - Refund of excess excise duty paid on account of addition of margin of notional profit @ 10% - rejection on the ground of limitation as the appellant did not file letter of protest under Rule 233B of CER, 1944 - Held that: - when the duty was paid, the proceedings were still going on. Even though, they had filed RT-12 returns, gate passes and invoices by affixing the stamp ED paid under protest, the claim was rejected on the ground that the specific pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nder protest and no limitation is applicable. - Refund not hit by limitation bar - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/419/2007 - Final Order No. 61117/2017 - Dated:- 31-5-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) For the Appellant: Shri J.P.Kaushik, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Harvinder Singh,AR ORDER Per : Devender Singh The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. filed refund claim of ₹ 9,65,944/- on 10.3.199 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ved from which the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was also rejected. Both authorities rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation as the appellant did not file letter of protest under Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant went in appeal before the Tribunal who vide Order dated 3.2.2005 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. In compliance of the remand proceedings, by issuing the proper sho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f 1991-92 were still pending before the Tribunal and the same were decided by the Tribunal vide Order No.1071/99/A dated on 2.8.1999 in their favour. To substantiate this, he has produced the order 2.8.1999 of this Tribunal. He contended that as per judgement of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE, Chennai-II vs. Electro Steel Castings Limited-2014 (299) ELT 305 (Mad.) that payment of duty made only during the pendency of appeal against very levy of duty for the earlier period is de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ral Excise Rules which prescribed the procedure for lodging the protest and intimation was to be given to the proper officer. Since the procedure under Rule 233B had not been followed, the protest marked on the gate passes and invoices was in compliance of the prescribed procedure. He relied on the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemical vs. CCE, Vadodara-2004 (166) ELT 193 (Tr-.Del.) 4. Heard both parties and perused the records. 5. The undisputed facts .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ces by affixing the stamp ED paid under protest, the claim was rejected on the ground that the specific procedure was not followed. There are conflicting judgements of this Tribunal on the admissibility of such marking on the documents. However, the fact remains that litigation proceedings for the period 1991-92 were going on. As held by Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE, Chennai-II vs. Electro Steel Castings Limited (supra) that payment made when the assessee has been challenging ear .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en contesting the levy of duty for the earlier period. The Supreme Court is compelled to say that- Now, where a person proposes to contest his liability by way of appeal, revision or in the higher courts, he would naturally pay the duty, whenever he does, under protest. It is difficult to imagine that a manufacturer would pay the duty without protest even when he contests the levy of duty, its rate, classification or any other aspect... That being the categorical observation of the Supreme Court .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ame relates to cause of action. In that case, the Hon ble Supreme Court was called upon to decide starting date of period of limitation, whether it is from the date on which identical third party s case or the assessee s own case was finally decided by the Tribunal. In the case cited above, the payment was made under protest and the assessee originally classified the products under sub-heading 2404.60. Whereas, the Revenue classified the products under sub-heading 2404.50. The CESTAT in the case .....

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