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>Excise Refund Appeal Allowed: Time Limit Met, Duty Incidence at Frontier, Precedent Invalidated</h1> <h3>SURYAVANSHI SPG. MILLS LTD. Versus CCE, BHOPAL</h3> SURYAVANSHI SPG. MILLS LTD. Versus CCE, BHOPAL - 2006 (76) RLT 619 (CESTAT - Ban.) Issues:Refund claim for duty paid on goods cleared for export, Time bar for filing refund claimRefund Claim for Duty Paid on Goods Cleared for Export:The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for excisable goods cleared for domestic consumption, brought back to the factory, and subsequently exported without payment of duty. The appellants argued that since the goods had suffered excise duty incidence, they were entitled to a refund under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The claim was filed within one year from the date the goods crossed the Indian frontiers, meeting the time limit requirement under Section 11B (1) of the Central Excise Act. The appellants also challenged the lower authority's reliance on a previous decision, which was later held to be per incuriam, making the reliance unsustainable. Additionally, citing a different case law, the appellants contended that bringing back goods for re-processing entitled them to claim a refund under Rule 173L.Time Bar for Filing Refund Claim:The Revenue argued that although the appellant was entitled to a refund on merits, the claim was time-barred as the duty was paid in 1999, but the refund claim was filed in 2001. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the relevant date for limitation should be when the goods crossed the Indian frontiers, which was within the time limit. The Tribunal noted that the goods had indeed suffered duty incidence, making the appellants eligible for the refund. The Tribunal further emphasized that the earlier decision relied upon by the lower authority had been held per incuriam, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.This judgment highlights the importance of understanding the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act concerning refund claims and time limitations. It also underscores the significance of legal precedents and the impact of per incuriam decisions on the validity of lower authorities' reliance.
TaxTMI 