The appellant's Daman unit mistakenly paid duty liability of ...

Tribunal Rules Initial Filing Date Counts for Refund Time Limit Due to ERP Error, Overturning Previous Decision.

October 28, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

The appellant's Daman unit mistakenly paid duty liability of their Halol unit due to an error in the ERP system meant for all group units. The issue pertains to determining the date for computing the one-year time limit u/s 11B for filing a refund application - whether it should be the initial filing date or the subsequent re-filing date after the department returned the initial application. The Tribunal held that since the appellant initially filed the refund claim within one year, the date of first filing should be considered, rendering the refund application not time-barred. Relying on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Auro Pumps Private Ltd, the Tribunal ruled that the duty paid in excess is refundable. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s power to remand matters based on amendments to the Central Excise Act, 1944.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The appellant's Daman unit mistakenly paid duty liability of ...

Tribunal Rules Initial Filing Date Counts for Refund Time Limit Due to ERP Error, Overturning Previous Decision.

October 28, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

You may also like:

Filing of Form GST TRAN-1 - time limit for filing of the form - The time limit stipulated under Rule 117 of the Rules is not ultra vires of the Act. This Rule is...

Rejection of refund claim - GTA Service - time limitation - The tribunal reaffirmed the previous tribunal orders that transportation of coal within and outside mining...

CESTAT allowed the appeal regarding refund of unutilized accumulated CENVAT credit. Department's rejection of refund claim citing ineligible input services under Rule...

Refund claim of service tax paid on cancelled transactions - Post GST era - Rejection of refund under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules read with Sec 142(5) of CGST Act -...

The case pertains to the jurisdiction of impugned orders under the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, and the time limitation u/s 73 and Section 44 of the Act. The key points are:...

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Whether the time limit of one year has provided under Section 11B is applicable for refund under Rule 5 - Held Yes - time...

The appellant sought refund of Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid in cash u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 142(3)...

Refund of cenvat credit - Period of limitation - Rule does not specify any time limit for claiming the refund of credit - rejection of refund is not sustainable - AT

Time limit to pass assessment u/s. 92CA(3) - Transfer pricing adjustments - After thorough consideration of the statutory provisions and legal arguments presented by...

Adjustment of excess service tax paid with subsequent service tax liability - case of Revenue is that Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 do not provide for such...

The ITAT partially allowed the taxpayer's appeal concerning comparable selection for transfer pricing adjustments. The Tribunal excluded Tata Elxsi Limited (significant...

CESTAT dismissed appeal concerning refund claim of unutilized Cenvat Credit under s.142(3) of CGST Act, read with Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules and s.11B of Central...

HC ruled in favor of the appellant regarding customs duty refund claims from 2014-2015. While initial refunds were granted, subsequent litigation reached SC, which...

GST, a success of vast proportions, decreased tax incidence on common man, reduced compliance burden and logistics cost for trade and industry. Amendments facilitated...

Refund of SAD - time limit of one year - the Commissioner(Appeals) has committed an error while giving an expanded interpretation qua limitation to favour assessee -...

Quick Updates: