9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 254 - HC - Central ExciseRefund- The assessee sought refund after the limitation period contending that denial of refund will be violation of Article 265 of the Constitution and, therefore, applications for refund should have been allowed even after limitation. Court disallowed the refund mentioning that refund application beyond period specified under Section 11B of the Act could not be entertained unless refund was as a consequence of declaration of a provision as unconstitutional.
Issues:
Seeking quashing of order rejecting refund claim under Central Excise Act due to limitation period violation. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dealt with three petitions involving the same legal question. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, sought a direction to quash an order rejecting their refund claim under the Central Excise Act. The rejection was based on the grounds of the application being filed beyond the statutory limitation period of six months as prescribed under Section 11B of the Act. Despite the petitioner's argument that denial of refund would violate Article 265 of the Constitution, the court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, which clarified that refund applications beyond the specified period could not be entertained unless it resulted from a provision being declared unconstitutional. The court emphasized that the applications for refund were indeed filed beyond the prescribed statutory period, and the contention raised by the petitioner regarding the violation of Article 265 was not tenable in light of the Supreme Court's precedent. The judgment highlighted the legal principle that refund applications exceeding the timeframe specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act could not be considered valid unless linked to a declaration of a provision as unconstitutional. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions, affirming the rejection of the refund claims based on the limitation period violation.
|
