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>Appellate Tribunal grants refund in Central Excise case, clarifies refund rules for advance duty payments.</h1> <h3>HARISH TEXTILES, CAMBAY Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA</h3> The Appellate Tribunal overturned the decision of the lower authorities and granted relief to the appellants in a Central Excise case. The Tribunal held ... - Issues:- Rejection of refund claim by lower authorities- Applicability of Rule 11 on the refund claim- Interpretation of the saving clause in Notification No. 146/77-C.E.- Authority for granting refunds after the deletion of Rule 96 JAnalysis:The appellants were aggrieved by the rejection of their refund claim amounting to Rs. 3401.60 by both the lower authorities. The case revolved around the application of the compounded levy scheme under Central Excise Rules, 1944, for unprocessed cotton fabrics produced by a powerloom unit. The appellants paid the levy for a year in advance, but due to a subsequent full exemption from duty on their goods, they sought a proportionate refund for the period post-exemption. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim citing the absence of an authority for refunds after the deletion of Rule 96 J and the saving clause in Notification No. 146/77-C.E. The Appellate Collector upheld this decision, mistakenly assuming the claim was time-barred under Rule 11.Upon review, the Appellate Tribunal found the Appellate Collector's time-bar assessment erroneous. The claim was lodged within six months of duty exemption, making Rule 11 inapplicable. The Tribunal determined that since the duty itself was withdrawn by the Government, the advance payment made by the appellants was akin to a deposit and not subject to Rule 11 restrictions on duty refunds. The Tribunal emphasized that the saving clause in Notification No. 146/77-C.E. did not preclude refunds for deposits made post-exemption. Refunds for deposits did not necessitate a specific rule under the Central Excise Rules, and the saving clause did not impede the appellants' right to a refund that accrued upon duty withdrawal. The Tribunal concluded that the Department lacked the authority to retain the advance payment for the duty-free period and allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
