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 denies refund claim for Central Excise duty on captively manufactured moulds</h1> <h3>M/s The Supreme Ind. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V</h3> M/s The Supreme Ind. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V - 2016 (342) E.L.T. 142 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Eligibility for refund of Central Excise duty paid on manufacturing articles out of duty paid on captively manufactured moulds.2. Compliance with procedures under Chapter X of Central Excise Rules 1944 for refund eligibility.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against an order dated 31.08.2005 regarding the eligibility for a refund of Central Excise duty paid on manufacturing articles from duty paid on captively manufactured moulds. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. In the subsequent round of litigation, both lower authorities ruled against the appellant, rejecting their contentions.2. The key issue in this case was whether the appellant, by not following the procedures outlined in Chapter X of Central Excise Rules 1944, was entitled to a refund of duty paid on the moulds used for manufacturing plastic articles. The appellant did not adhere to the requirements for availing benefits under Notification No. 68/92 dated 11.06.1992.3. The first appellate authority's findings were deemed correct in the context of the case. The authority emphasized that the appellant's failure to follow the procedures set out in Chapter X of Central Excise Rules 1944, and the absence of a Classification List for claiming exemption benefits under Notification No. 68/92 dated 11.06.1992, constituted a lack of substantial compliance with the necessary conditions.4. The Tribunal concurred with the first appellate authority's findings, upholding the impugned order as legally sound and free from defects. The decision was considered appropriate, and the appeal was consequently dismissed. The order was pronounced in open court, affirming the rejection of the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of eligibility for a refund of Central Excise duty and compliance with procedural requirements under Chapter X of Central Excise Rules 1944, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.
TaxTMI 