Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s M & B Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida

2017 (10) TMI 1179 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Interest on delayed refund - Section 11BB of the CEA - relevant date - Held that: - interest on delayed refund is payable under Section 11BB of the Act on expiry of the period of three months from the date of application under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not from the date of order of refund or appellate order - we direct Mr. Mahabir, Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise/ GST, Division-II, C-56/42, Sectory-62, Noida - 201307 to file an explanation/ show cause reply, as to why not a reference be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

This is a Miscellaneous Application under Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, in Appeal No.E/467/2009-EX[DB] (disposed of on 22nd February, 2017) vide Final Order No.A/70222/2017 dated 22nd February, 2017. 2. The aforementioned appeal was allowed with consequential benefits to the appellant. Pursuant to the final order of this Tribunal, the appellant approached the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Division-, Noida, for grant of refund (consequential relief) by their request le .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

06 with the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-Il, Noida pertaining to the differential amount in Central Excise duty arising on the basis of original MRP and the reduced MRP of the footwear. Although, he was pleased to allow the refund of the principal amount but rejected the claim for interest on delayed refund, observing "the interest on delayed refund will be applicable only after lapse of three months without any query from the date of receipt of the said ref .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tes that the aforementioned observation of the learned Deputy Commissioner is contrary to the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Versus Union of India, reported at 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed interpreting the provisions of Section 11BB read with Section 11B as follows:- 15. In view of the above analysis, our answer to the question formulated in Para-1 (supra) is that the liability of the Revenue to pay inte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Let's just recapitulate:

|| 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.