Feedback   New User   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. Chola Pumps (P) Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Coimbatore

2018 (1) TMI 485 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Refund claim - rejection on the grounds that it had been filed belatedly and was hit by limitation - Section 11 B of the CEA - Held that: - the competent authority is required to either sanction or reject the refund claim otherwise order for the amount claimed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. There is however no provision for the return of refund claims without making any of these decisions. There is no speaking order issued in this case - Once the relevant date is taken as 07.05.200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

C (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were manufacturers of power driven pumps under the brand name CRI belonging to others along with their own brand name AKASH and they were availing SSI exemption under the Notification No. 9/2003-CE. During audit it appeared that the appellant was also availing exemption for clearances made under the brand name CRI AKASH . It appeared to the department that CRI-AKASH also belongs to the appellant and tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ejected by the original authority, on the grounds that it had been filed belatedly and was hit by limitation. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 22.07.2010, rejecting the appeal only on the ground of limitation and upheld the order of the original authority to that extent. Hence the appellants are before this forum. 2. Today when the matter was called, the Ld. Counsel submits that the refund claim has been filed well within time under Section 11 B of the Central .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

horous Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2005 (184) ELT 240 (Guj.) b. CCE Vs. Arya Exports and Industries 2005 (192) ELT 89 (Del.) c. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Joint Secretary 2013 (291) ELT 189 (Mad.) d. Abhedya Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE 2016 (340) ELT 398 (Tri.-Hyd.) e. Duraline India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2009 (237) ELT 689 (Tri.-Mum.) f. Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. CCE 2002 (150) ELT 331 (Tri.-Del.) 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR submits that the refund had been rejected vide the letter dated 25.06.2004, wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mal course as indicated in Explanation B, (f); the date of payment of duty has to be taken as the relevant date. Thus any person who feels that he has justifiable claim for refund in respect of any excess duty that may have been paid can make a claim of refund under Section 11 B. The procedure of getting of such refund is clearly laid down in that Section. On receipt of such application, the competent authority is required to either sanction or reject the refund claim otherwise order for the amo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

then necessarily have to be considered as the date of filing of the claim. Once the relevant date is taken as 07.05.2004, the refund claim is found to be filed within the period prescribed under Section 11 B ibid. In arriving at this conclusion, we draw sustenance from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Jaipur -2017 (345) ELT 132 (Tri.-Del.). The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:- 3. It is an admitted fact on r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itiated by the Department were dropped by the Joint Commissioner vide order dated 13-5-2009. Consequent upon the favourable order, the appellant pursued the matter with the Department for sanction of refund. Since, the request was not considered favourably, the appellant has filed the refund application once again on 19-10-2011. The authorities below took the view that since the order was passed on 13-5-2009 and the refund application was filed on 19-10-2011, the same is barred by limitation of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion to the assessee. Since, the ground of filing refund application on 30-6-1994 is same in the application filed on 19-10-2011, in my considered view, application filed on 30-6-1994 should be construed as proper application for the purpose of computation of limitation of time. Since, the initial application was filed within the statutory time frame, in my opinion, there is no delay in filing the subsequent application on 19-10-2011, which was in continuation to the earlier application dated 30 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

11-2007, along with the relevant documents. The second respondent had returned the enclosures submitted by the petitioner, along with the rebate claim application, vide letter, dated 20-2-2008. However, the second respondent had retained the application for rebate of duty, in Form C. It is also noted that the final confirmation of the date of shipment had been made only on 23-12-2008. In view of the fact that the rebate claim scheme has been introduced as a beneficial scheme to encourage exports .....

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