TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Remands Case for Review of Erroneous Refund Recovery Limitation Period</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD Versus KV. RAO CHHIKNIWALA</h3> The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on whether the refund was ... Demand - Limitation - Erroneous refund Issues:Claim for refund of duty erroneously sanctioned; Limitation period for recovery of erroneous refund.Analysis:The case involved a claim for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 2,12,530.30 filed by the respondents based on an order by the Collector stating they were not liable to pay duty on snuff cleared during a specific period. The Assistant Commissioner initially sanctioned the refund on 30-11-1988. However, the refund was later deemed erroneous, leading to a show cause notice for recovery issued on 1-6-1989. The main contention revolved around the limitation period for recovery of the erroneously granted refund.Upon review, the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty representing the amount of refund erroneously granted. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's argument that the notice dated 1-6-1989 was time-barred as it was issued beyond six months from the date of the refund sanction order. This decision prompted the Revenue to file an appeal challenging the limitation aspect.The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the arguments and examining the records, determined that the relevant date for computing the limitation period for recovery of an erroneous refund was the date of the cheque for the refund amount received on 13-12-1988. Relying on the precedent set by the Tribunal's decision in Perfect Engineering, 1996 (81) E.L.T. 182, it was concluded that the demand for recovery fell within the statutory limitation period of six months. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on the merits, specifically to ascertain whether the refund had indeed been erroneously sanctioned and if the recovery was legally justified.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by remand, emphasizing the criticality of adhering to the statutory limitation period for recovery of erroneously granted refunds and the necessity for a thorough examination of the merits of the case in such situations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
