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 of Gujarat admits Tax Appeal challenging refund claim rejection under Central Excise Act, 1994.</h1> <h3>THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE Versus M/s RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED</h3> THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE Versus M/s RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED - TMI Issues involved:Treatment of refund claim under Central Excise Act, 1994.Analysis:The High Court of Gujarat heard a Tax Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994, challenging the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had rejected the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the Order in Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central GST & Central Excise, Rajkot. The main issue in question was the treatment to be given in law to the refund claim of the petitioner.The appellant raised several substantial questions of law for consideration. These questions primarily revolved around the interpretation of the Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. The questions included whether the mandatory time limit to file a refund claim applied to specific categories of refund claims, the correctness of the sanctioning of the refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority, and the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority in allowing the filing of refund claims beyond the prescribed time limit.Upon reviewing the impugned order of the CESTAT and hearing the arguments from both parties, the High Court concluded that the appeal deserved admission on specific substantial questions of law. The Court highlighted the importance of interpreting the mandatory time limit to file a refund claim and the conditions regarding the submission of refund claims by the SEZ unit. The Court found that these issues required further consideration and analysis, indicating a potential misreading of the relevant clauses of the Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013.In summary, the High Court's judgment focused on the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1994, particularly concerning the refund claim of the petitioner. The Court identified specific substantial questions of law that required detailed examination, emphasizing the need for a thorough analysis of the relevant clauses of the Notification to ensure a correct legal interpretation and application in the present case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
