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>Court dismisses ROM application, clarifies time limit for refund claims based on invoice date.</h1> <h3>AFFINITY EXPRESS INDIA PVT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I</h3> AFFINITY EXPRESS INDIA PVT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I - 2015 (37) S.T.R. 333 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Consideration of case laws in passing the order.2. Applicability of time limit for filing refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules.Analysis:1. The appellant filed a ROM application citing that certain case laws were not considered while passing the order. The advocate argued that the Division Bench case of Vodafone Cellular Ltd. held that the time limit for filing a refund claim starts from the date of payment of service tax. However, the respondent contended that all judgments were indeed considered as indicated in para 7 of the order. The judge agreed that all judgments were considered, even though not discussed in detail, and the order was based on judgments passed by the High Courts.2. Regarding the applicability of time limit for filing a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, the judge examined the Vodafone Cellular case and noted that it pertained to a rebate claim under a specific notification without a prescribed time limit. However, the present case involved a refund claim under a different notification that specified a time limit as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The judge clarified that the relevant date for the present case was the date of raising the invoice, as the appellant was not required to pay any duty. Additionally, the judgment in Deepak Spinners Ltd. was based on a High Court judgment extensively discussed in another High Court case, indicating a higher authority than the Tribunal. Consequently, the judge found no error in the record and dismissed the ROM application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
