9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. cited [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] all claims of refund, except those which arise as a result of declaration of unconstitutionality of provision where under the levy was created, have to be preferred and adjudicated only under the provision of respective enactment, which in the instant case is Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and Sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vertently and part excess payment of ₹ 66,930/-and ₹ 8,755/- for the subsequent two quarters were adjusted but rest amount of ₹ 3,01,899/- could not be adjusted after 31.03.2010 apparently because of closer of factory, for which appellant filed a refund claim before the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune on 04.01.2013, that was met with refusal by way of passing of Order-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant date of payment would be applicable. For which appellant entitled to get refund as if factory has been closed w.e.f. 2012 and excess payment could not be adjusted as per provision of Central Excise Act and Rules. 4. In response to such submissions, learned Authorised Representative for the respondent-department supported the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch that such refund application was filed even after surrender of licence in 2012. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. cited (supra) all claims of refund, except those which arise as a result of declaration of unconstitutionality of provision where under the levy was created, have to be preferred and adjudicated only under the provision of respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
