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. Goldwin Medicare Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I

2017 (9) TMI 864 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Refund of excess duty paid - confusion in the method of valuation - refund rejected on the ground of time bar and unjust enrichment - Held that: - as regard the time bar, since refund was admittedly filed first time within the stipulated time as prescribed under Section 11B. Subsequent re-submission of refund claim cannot be taken as filing of refund claim first time - the refund is not time-barred. - Unjust enrichment - Held that: - though the appellant have submitted C.A. certificate, affi .....

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 case is that appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Surgical Dressings falling under Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have cleared their goods during the period January, 2007 to February, 2007 on payment of Central Excise duty on MRP based value as per Section 4A. There was some confusion, whether the value of said product is governed by Section 4 or Section 4A. Subsequently, it was clarified by the department that value should be under Section 4. Accordingly, there ari .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

peal, therefore appellant is before me. 2. Ms. Kirti Bhoite, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that since refund initially submitted in time, re-submission of refund claim will not amount to delay in filing refund claim as date of filing refund should be reckoned from date on which refund claim initially submitted. In support of her submission she placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Commr. of Service Tax, Mumbai Versus Reliance Communication Ltd. [2008 (11) S.T.R. 258 (Tri. - Mum .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

EXCISE, MADRAS Versus ADDISON & CO. LTD. - 2016 (339) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) (b) SHREE KRISHNA NYLON PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-III[2015 (327) E.L.T. 626 (Tri. - Mumbai)] (c) SHREYAS INTERMEDIATES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-II [2016 (333) E.L.T. 380 (Tri. - Mumbai)] (d) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I Versus SANDVIK ASIA LTD.[ 2015 (323) E.L.T. 431 (Bom.)] 3. On the other hand, Shri. S.V. Nair, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Rev .....

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