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 grants refund under Section 11B of Central Excise Act</h1> <h3>M/s Siddharth Polysacks (P) Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-I</h3> M/s Siddharth Polysacks (P) Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-I - TMI Issues:1. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation.Analysis:The case involved appeals against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise, Jaipur, based on the ground of limitation. The appellant had reversed irregularly availed Cenvat credit upon detection by the audit wing of the Central Excise Department. The appellant filed a refund application after a favorable adjudication order dated 01.02.2010, seeking refund of the Cenvat credit allowed. However, the refund application was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on 28.08.2012, citing that it was filed after one year from the date of the adjudication order, thus barred by limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.2. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The appellant argued that the time limit prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 11B should not apply since the duty was paid under protest. On the other hand, the Revenue-Respondent contended that the refund claim should have been filed within one year from the date of the adjudication order allowing Cenvat credit, as per the explanation appended to Section 11B. The Tribunal analyzed Section 11B, noting that the 2nd Proviso exempts the limitation of one year where duty and interest are paid under protest. The explanation clarifies the term 'relevant date' for filing a refund application within one year under normal circumstances. Considering the payment of duty under protest, the Tribunal held that the limitation for filing the refund application does not apply in such cases.Final Decision:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, granting them the refund of the amount paid under protest. The judgment emphasized the application of Section 11B and the exemption from limitation in cases where duty is paid under protest, ensuring the appellant's entitlement to the refund.
TaxTMI 