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

2013 (6) TMI 802

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aside the impugned communication / order of respondent no.2 dated 19.11.2010. 2. The facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under: 2.1. That the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 52, 54, 55 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. That at the relevant time i.e. period of year 2000, the petitioner was operating under the compound levy scheme i.e. Section 3 A of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). According to the petitioner, they discharged their Central Excise Duty liability firstly for the period of December 1998 to March 1999 and applied for refixation of APC on 14.5.1999 and then on 14.8.2000. That the duty liability worked out .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g whether there was in fact an unjust enrichment or not. That by order dated 17.7.2007 Assistant Commissioner again rejected the refund claim of the petitioner. It is required to be noted at this stage that as such during the course of hearing before the Assistant Commissioneroriginal authority, the petitioner produced all the relevant documents inclusive of Cost Accountant Certificate and other documents in support of their claim that there was no unjust enrichment and that they were entitled to refund of duty paid in excess. Despite the above and without considering the same the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim by order dated 17.7.2007. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the OIO passed by the Assistant Commissioner date .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the petitioner approached the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal by order dated 21.7.2009 remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh decision, after dealing with all the evidences relied upon by the original adjudicating authority in favour of assessee. That thereafter on remand, the Commissioner of Appeals rejected the remand appeal of the Revenue and upholding OIO dated 1.8.2008. That thereafter, the refund was granted to the petitioner however simultaneous show cause notice for recovery as erroneous refund was also issued. That thereafter by order dated 11.2.2010 said show cause notice for recovery came to be dropped by the Assistant Commissioner, which came to be confirmed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s therefore, requested to consider the claim of the petitioner for the interest on the refund amount at least from 18.4.2007. It is further submitted by Shri Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner that when the respondents have collected the amount from the petitioner wholly unauthorizedly, the respondents cannot escape the liability of interest as available / provided under Section 11 B of the Act. 4. On the other hand and while opposing the petition and supporting the order passed by the authority denying the interest on the refund amount, Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned advocate for the department has submitted that as it was found that at the relevant time the petitioner did not produce the relevant documents to prove that the duty was n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the matter to the original adjudicating authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for refund, considering the documentary evidences produced (which were produced on 18.4.2007) and thereafter on the basis of the said documents order of remand has been passed by the department, however the department failed and the order dated 1.8.2008 sanctioning the refund came to be confirmed and thereafter the actual refund has been paid by cheque on 8.9.2009. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case when the petitioner produced all the supporting documents such as Cost Accountant Certificate, Statement of Bills and process form etc. to prove that there was no unjust enrichment, which came to be accepted by the department wh .....

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