TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Appeal Dismissed: Refund Claim Time-Barred for Separate Legal Entities</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the refund claim as time-barred. The appellant's ... Time-Barred Refund Claim as per Section 11B(1) - whether duty paid should be treated as paid under protest – Held that:- The period of duty payment is June 2000 to October 2005, which is clearly made after a period of one year from the payment of duty - Argument of the appellant that a favourable decision taken by the Commissioner with reference to their Gandhar unit should be taken as a deemed protest for the appellants unit is not acceptable as each registered unit is a separate legal entity so as payment of duty is concerned - it cannot be held that duties were paid under protest by the appellant - Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly rejected the appeal filed by the appellant - refund claim has been correctly held as time barred – Decided against Assessee. Issues: Refund claim of duty paid, payment under protest, deemed protest for separate units, time limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act.The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. RS-366-SRT-II dated 24.11.2006 by the Commissioner (Appeals), Surat-II. The appellant sought a refund of duty paid for the period June 2000 to October 2003 without having paid the duties under protest. The refund claim was based on a favorable order from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-II, regarding duty liability on certain products at the appellant's plant. The appellant argued that the favorable order for their Gandhar unit should be considered a deemed protest for their Ankleshwar unit as well, making them entitled to a refund claim on the same issue.The appellant's representative contended that the favorable decision for the Gandhar unit should be treated as a deemed protest for the Ankleshwar unit. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative reiterated the reasoning provided by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides and examined the case records. According to Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a refund application must be made within one year from the 'relevant date,' which is the date of duty payment. The second proviso to Section 11B(1) states that the one-year limitation does not apply when duty is paid under protest. In this case, the duty payment period was from June 2000 to October 2005, exceeding the one-year limit from the payment date. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the favorable decision for the Gandhar unit should be considered a deemed protest for the Ankleshwar unit, emphasizing that each registered unit is a separate legal entity regarding duty payment. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the appeal, ruling that the refund claim was time-barred.In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed as the refund claim was correctly deemed time-barred, and the argument that duties were paid under protest due to a favorable decision for a different unit was not accepted. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in rejecting the appellant's claim for a refund of duty paid.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
