1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal rules in favor of buyer's refund claim under Central Excise Act</h1> The tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the original authority to reconsider the refund claim on its merits. It emphasized the buyer's entitlement to ... Refund - Limitation Issues:1. Refund claim of Special Excise Duty (SED) on a motor vehicle registered as a taxi.2. Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. regarding refund claims by manufacturer vs. ultimate buyer.3. Applicability of procedural requirements for refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.Analysis:1. The appellant purchased a taxi from a dealer and paid duty, including SED. The claim for refund of SED was rejected by lower authorities based on procedural grounds. The lower authorities did not assess the refund claim on its merits, leading to the rejection. The appellant appealed against this decision.2. The Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. granted exemption from SED on taxis and allowed manufacturers to claim refunds within 6 months. However, in this case, the refund claim was filed by the ultimate buyer, not the manufacturer. The tribunal ruled that the procedural requirements specified in the notification were not applicable to the buyer's claim. The buyer's right to claim a refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was emphasized, subject to the condition of unjust enrichment.3. The tribunal held that the original authority erred in rejecting the refund claim based on the claimant's lack of locus standi. The claimant, as the ultimate buyer, had the right to claim a refund under Section 11B, provided unjust enrichment was not an issue. The tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the case for a fresh adjudication by the original authority in accordance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the original authority to reconsider the refund claim on its merits, emphasizing the buyer's entitlement to claim a refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
