Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2008 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 721 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Refund rejection on the grounds of being time-barred. 2. Applicability of supervision charges in storing sugar outside factory premises without duty payment. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of the refund claim. The appellant, engaged in sugar manufacturing, stored sugar outside the factory premises with permission, subject to paying supervision charges. The refund claim was denied as time-barred, as per the show-cause notice issued by the adjudicating authority. 2. The appellant argued that the condition to pay supervision charges was not covered under any provision of the Central Excise Act or Rules. The appellant referenced revenue circulars to support the claim that manufacturers were not required to pay supervision charges. Additionally, the appellant contended that since the Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that the refund was not time-barred, the rejection order exceeded the show-cause notice's scope. 3. The Revenue's stance was that the appellant requested permission to store sugar outside the factory without duty payment, agreeing to pay supervision charges. The appellant complied with the condition, paid the charges, and later filed a refund claim disputing the liability to pay supervision charges. 4. The judgment highlighted that the appellant willingly accepted the condition to pay supervision charges to store sugar outside the factory without duty payment. The appellant did not challenge the permission order imposing the condition. Therefore, the appellant's compliance with the condition precluded them from claiming a refund for the charges paid. The appeal was dismissed based on these findings. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant's actions in storing sugar outside the factory premises and paying supervision charges as per the permission granted precluded them from seeking a refund. The judgment underscored the importance of complying with conditions attached to permissions granted under the Central Excise Act or Rules.
|