9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year and therefore, the Original Authority should have examined the claim within the four walls of the statutory provisions. In subsequent proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into account the interpretation of certain exclusion of period due to COVID etc., in terms of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of certain provisions) Ordinance, 2020 and came to the conclusion that even after allowing this, the original statutory time limit would not have been adhered and therefore, the refund was required to be rejected as time barred. There is also substantive force in the arguments made by the Department that once the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) had attained finality, rightly or wrongly, the Importer/Respondent can now not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 020, the Importer/Respondent paid an amount of Rs.1,20,201/- in cash. Since they had paid this amount in cash, they subsequently sought refund of the said amount, claiming that since the said amount was already paid through MEIS scrips, this amounts to double payment. The original refund sanctioning authority granted the said refund. However, the Department, on review, challenged the said order by filing Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, after going through various grounds but primarily on the ground of applicability of limitation and its being time barred, ordered that the refund was not admissible and that the claim was hit by time bar. Admittedly, no Appeal was filed by the Importer/Respondent against the said order of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Importer/Respondent can now not come in Appeal for similar matter, which was already decided and has attained finality by again agitating the issue on merit:- a) CC (AIR), Meenambakkam, Chennai Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd [2019 (369) ELT 289 (Mad.)] b) Euro Ceramics Ltd Vs UOI [2017 (354) ELT 23 (Guj.)] c) Vamshi Rubber Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad-III [2015 (322) ELT 249 (AP)] 5. He has also reiterated that as already considered by this Bench, this case will not fall under the low revenue category, in view of the fact that this is relating to refund, which has got legal and recurring consequences. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Importer/Respondent, primarily, pleads that in terms of clear provisions under Section 129 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VID etc., in terms of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of certain provisions) Ordinance, 2020 and came to the conclusion that even after allowing this, the original statutory time limit would not have been adhered and therefore, the refund was required to be rejected as time barred. In the consequential proceedings, though the department has relied on the logic taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) for considering the claim as time barred and confirmation of the demand for erroneous refund, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has considered the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court dt.10.01.2022 (supra), according to which the claim was admittedly filed within the time limit. Therefore, certain facts are very clear that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
