Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Hapur

2018 (1) TMI 414 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Refund of pre-deposit with interest - Section 35F of CEA - Section 35FF of CEA - grievance of the appellants is that their refund was adjusted without giving any opportunity of hearing - computation of interest - Held that: - the adjudicating authority have erred in not calculating the interest payable to the appellants - assessee under the provisions of Section 35FF - adjustment of demand in exercise of powers under Section 11 of the Act from the refund payable to the appellant is bad to the ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

als relates to refund of pre-deposit made under the provisions of Section 35F and refund of the said amount with interest as provided under Section 35FF of the Act. 2. In Appeal No. E/70051/2017-EX[SM] the facts are as follows: 30.04.2002 Issued Show Cause Notice C. No. V(30) 193/Demand/2001/3412 dated 30.04.2002 for the period April, 2001 to June, 2001. 10.03.2005 Order-in-Original No. 226(20/02) Dem/2001 was passed on 10.03.2005, received by appellant on 12.03.2005 confirmed the demand of S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1.2006 before CESTAT, New Delhi. 16.03.2006 The CESTAT, New Delhi passed Stay Order No. 361/2006-SM dated 16.03.2006 with the direction to deposit of ₹ 50,000/- within four weeks from the date of Stay Order i.e. 16.03.2006. 28.03.2006 An amount of ₹ 50,000/- was debited in RG-23A Part-II vide Entry No. 730 dated 28.03.2006 in compliance to aforesaid stay order dated 16.03.2006. 04.12.2007 The CESTAT vide Final Order No. 83/2008-SM (BR) dated 04.12.2007 partly allowed the appeal and f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

again filed before CESTAT, New Delhi. The CESTAT allowed our stay application vide Stay Order No. 169/2010-SM(BR) dated 03.05.2010. 24.04.2012 The Hon ble CESTAT, New Delhi once again remanded back the case to adjudicating authority vide Final Order No. 457/2012-SM(BR) dated 24.04.2012. 09.05.2012 The appellant vide application dated 09.05.2012 requested for refund of ₹ 50,000/-. 27.02.2013 On IInd remand by Hon ble CESTAT, New Delhi, the Adjudicating Authority vide O-in-O No. 22/AC/MBD/20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d 04.06.2013. 19.10.2015 The appellant vide letter dated 19.10.2015 again requested for refund of ₹ 50,000/-(pre-deposit). 2/3.11.2015 The Superintendent (R/R), Central Excise Division Moradabad vide letter bearing C. No. V(30)Ref/DSM/MBD/12/12/Pt./4178 dated 2/3.11.2015 informed that the claim of ₹ 50,000/- has already been decided by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division Moradabad vide O-in-O No.06/AC/MBD/2013 dated 21.10.2013 sent by post (not served to appellant). 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

o. V(30)73/Dem/MBD-I/2003/1936 dated 09.07.2003 for the period Sept. 2002 to Dec. 2002. 03.03.2005 Order-in-Original No. 226/(73/Dem/03) 2005 was passed on 03.03.2005 confirmed the demand of ₹ 3,02,299/- + ₹ 1,30,942/-, interest and also imposed equal penalty. 09.11.2005 Against the above Order dated 03.03.2005 appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise, Meerut-II and the Commissioner (Appeal) passed Order-in-Appeal No. 258-CE/MRT-II/2005 dated 09.11.2005 rejec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

before Commissioner (Appeal). The Commissioner (Appeal) vide Order-in-Appeal No.29-CE/MRT-II/2010 dated 15.02.2010 allowed Cenvat credit of ₹ 68,573/-. Penalty was also set-aside and ₹ 62,369/- disallowed on Welding Electrodes by Commissioner (Appeals), C.E. Meerut. 26.04.2010 The appellant had deposited an amount of ₹ 62,269/- in RG-23-C Part-II vide Entry No. 43 dated 26.04.2010 against Order-in-Appeal No. 29-CE/MRT-II/2010 dated 15.02.2010. 08.03.2010 An appeal was again fil .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

demand in some other case confirmed vide O-in-O No. 57/AC/MBD/2012 dated 04.06.2013. 19.10.2015 The appellant vide letter dated 19.10.2015 again requested for refund of ₹ 62,369/- (debited earlier). 2/3.11.2015 The Superintendent (R/R), Central Excise Division Moradabad vide letter bearing C. No. V(30)Ref/DSM/MBD/12/12/Pt./4784 dated 2/3.11.2015 informed that the claim of ₹ 62,369/- has already been decided by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division Moradabad vide O-in-O .....

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 appellants is that vide Order-in-Original dated the 21/10/2013 their refund was adjusted as mentioned in the table above without giving any opportunity of hearing. Secondly, the adjudicating authority failed to calculate the interest payable to the appellants - assessee under the provisions of Section 35FF of the Act read with Notification. On being asked by this Tribunal the appellants have not disputed the legality of the dues adjusted which were adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. 57/AC .....

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
 


Share:            

|| 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