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>High Court affirms Tribunal's ruling on refund claims timeline & export classification, appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>Principal Commr. of Cus., C.E. & S.T., Nagpur Versus Fabrimax Engg. Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Principal Commr. of Cus., C.E. & S.T., Nagpur Versus Fabrimax Engg. Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (359) E.L.T. 43 (Bom.) Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 27/2012 regarding the timeline for filing refund claims.2. Classification of clearances made to International Competitive Bidding as exports.Analysis:Issue 1: The appellant-department challenged the order of the Tribunal regarding the timeline for filing refund claims. The appellant contended that the refund claim should have been made at the end of the relevant quarter as per Notification No. 27/2012. However, the High Court found no merit in this argument. The Court analyzed Clause 3(b) of the notification, which allowed the refund claim to be filed before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Section 11B stated that a refund claim could be made before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. As the respondent-assessee had filed the refund claim within the specified time, the Court held that the claim was not time-barred. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's finding on the timeline for filing the refund claim was just and proper.Issue 2: The appellant also contested the classification of clearances made to International Competitive Bidding as exports. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in considering these clearances as exports. However, the Court disagreed with this contention as well. It noted that the show cause notice did not ask the respondent-assessee to justify why the clearances to international competitive bidding should not be considered exports. Relying on precedent, the Court held that the grounds of appeal could not extend beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Therefore, the appellate authority and the Tribunal were correct in their classification of the clearances. As both issues raised by the appellant lacked merit, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 