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
Discussions Forum
Home Forum Central Excise This

A Public Forum.
Acknowledging the Value of Experts.

Contribute Your Wisdom, Shape the Future.
Let Your Experience Guide Others

Submit new Issue / Query     My IssuesMy Replies
A free service.
You may submit an issue for brainstorming also.

Delay in filing application for refund of duty, Central Excise

Issue Id: - 110691
Dated: 26-7-2016
By:- wig sinbad

Delay in filing application for refund of duty


  • Contents

The manufacturer is eligible for refund of duty deposited ; PLA - Central Excise in terms of Notification 56/2002-CE dated 14/11/2002. The manufacturer in terms of Para 2B(a) of the notification referred to above was expected to file the claim for refund before the 7th of the next month. However he has filed the application for refund of PLA belatedly. The application was to be filed by 07/06/2015. However the application was filed on 24/06/2015. The refund was issued by the Department. However subsequently the Revenue has gone in appeal before the LD CCE (Appeals) stating that the refund was wrongly issed. Please advise on the manufacturers response and any case laws which favour the manufacturer.

Posts / Replies

Showing Replies 1 to 3 of 3 Records

Page: 1


1 Dated: 27-7-2016
By:- Ganeshan Kalyani

Sir, what stand that department is taking and what is your point of concern. please reply.

Let us make the discussion interactive. Thanks.


2 Dated: 27-7-2016
By:- wig sinbad

Sir,

The Department has earlier issued refund to the manufacturer. But now the Department has gone in Appeal to the LD CCE Appeals and has claimed that the refund of duty deposited has been wrongly made since the application for refund was filed belatedly.

In support the Department has relied upon the following case laws

1. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd vs CCE Pune ; 2004(9) TMI 102(SC) ; 2004(171) ELT 296(SC)

2. State of Jharkhand vs Ambay Cements ; 2004(11) TMI 319(SC); 2004(178) ELT 55(SC)

The matter of concern is that the manufacturer sells goods at low prices and the refund of excise duty paid makes the unit competitive. If refunds made have to be returned the manufacturer will be unable to continue as a financially viable unit


3 Dated: 29-7-2016
By:- Ganeshan Kalyani

Sir, the cited case laws pertains to declaration not submitted as required for availing the benefit of the referred notification as per the condition given in the notification. Here in your case it is not the declaration but the return and value of goods . In my view departments contention can be challenged. Thanks.


Page: 1

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Quick Updates:Latest Updates