Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (4) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aid date, the appellant has filed refund within one year. Refund claim is filed within time limit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/86253/17, E/CO/91112/17 - A/85282/2018 - Dated:- 15-2-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate - for Appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (AR) - for Respondent ORDER The refund claim of the appellant was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority in respect of the excess amount debited by the appellant in terms of Commissioners adjudication order No.Raigad/ADC/90(MRM)/15-16 dated 31.12.2015. The appellant had reversed the cenvat credit of ₹ 22 lakhs along with payment of interest before issuance of show cause notice. On po .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 010 (249) ELT 408 (Tri.-Del.); (ii) Auxichem - 2015 (330) ELT 721 (Tri.-Mum); (iii) Gujarat Engg. Works - 2013 (292) ELT 547 (Tri.-Ahmd.); (iv) Electro Steel Castings Ltd. - 2014 (299) ELT 305 (Mad.); (v) ITEL Industries Ltd. - 2014 (301) ELT 288 (Ker.); (vi) BCL Forgings Ltd. - 2005 (192) ELT 922 (Tri.-Mum.) affirmed by Hon ble Bombay High Court; (vii) Shree Ram Food Industries - 2003 (152) ELT 285; (viii) Dena Snuff P. Ltd. - 2003 (157) ELT 500 (SC); (ix) Clariant (I) Ltd. - 2015 (319) ELT 646 (Bom.). 3. Shri Sanjay Hasija, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the only exclusion is provided .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Therefore, before the adjudication of the demand of cenvat credit, no refund could have arisen. The refund has arisen only after the adjudication order was passed on 31.12.2015. Therefore, in my considered view, the period of one year provided under Section 11B should be reckoned from the date of such adjudication order, from the said date, the appellant has filed refund within one year. I also observe that as argued by learned AR, clause (ec) is also applicable in the present case for the reason that clause (ec) deals with any order. In this case the refund becomes payable consequent to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. The objective of clause (ec) is that whenever the matter is pending, obviously no refund can arise unless .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates